Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Child Care Allowance

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the child care allowance for those in receipt of family credit.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. peter Lilley): We expect the child care allowance to be very effective in helping low-income families back into work and improving their living standards.

Dr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that that allowance is not a cash benefit and that, although some people will gain provided that they are not paying much more than £1.50 an hour for child care, the poorest—those receiving maximum family credit—and those who use relatives to look after their children will gain nothing? What will the Secretary of State do to help them?

Mr. Lilley: I will not make those things clear because they are not correct. I am sorry that the hon. Lady greets this welcome reform so sourly, as it has been welcomed by everyone else in the sphere. Far from its helping only a few, we estimate that it will help 150,000 people, of whom 50,000 will be encouraged back to work. The people who are already on maximum family credit are usually those who work the shortest hours, many of whom will be able to increase their hours if they become eligible for child care costs. The allowance will enable them to put their children in care while they are working.

Pensioners' Incomes

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the value of the average pensioner's income from savings and occupational pensions; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

Mr. Lilley: In 1990–91—the latest year for which information is available—the estimated average value of pensioners' income from savings and occupational pensions was £63.20, which is an increase of more than 125 per cent. in real terms on the comparable figure of £27.80 in 1979.

Mr. Bates: But is not it also the case that pensioner living standards and incomes are up on the 1979 figures and that the only figures that are going down are the

number of pensioner couples in the lowest income band and the amount of press coverage that such excellent news receives?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have found that the most telling evidence of good news is the lack of reporting that it receives in the press. The fact that the income standards of pensioners are rising so strongly is extremely good news, and they are set to continue rising as more pensioners have occupational and private pensions.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that the figures that he gave are utter nonsense? The real increase in the level of the state old-age pension since 1979 is 3.6 per cent., as he has admitted. Will he stop bandying about figures that include investment income for a very small number of elderly people and instead consider the real levels of poverty among the elderly, the number of old people who die from hypothermia and the number of single women pensioners over the age of 75 who have no access to occupational pensions, savings or anything else and are living in poverty? Will the right hon. Gentleman restore the link with earnings, which the Conservative Government broke in 1980, and give people a decent pension?

Mr. Lilley: Apart from state provision, occupational pensions are the biggest single factor. It is true that in 1979—the year to which the hon. Member harks back—only 43 per cent. of retired people had occupational pensions. In the latest year for which we have figures, 61 per cent. of retired people had such pensions; among the newly retired the figure is 70 per cent., which is excellent news. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that, in every year since 1979, pensioners' incomes have increased on average by more than they did in all five years under Labour.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 10.7 million employees are members of occupational schemes? Will he also confirm that the Government will continue to provide an environment in which such schemes can flourish?

Mr. Lilley: I can certainly confirm that for my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. More than 10 million people in work are building up occupational pensions—apart from those retired people who are enjoying them—and 5 million additional people are building up private pensions for the future. That is good news, as is the additional provision that the Government have made for the least well-off—£1 billion a year since 1988.

Community Care

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement regarding community care grants.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Community care grants play an important part in support of the Government's wider initiatives to promote care in the community.
As in previous years, we have identified from our routine monitoring scope for some minor improvements to the Secretary of State's directions and guidance. Details of amendments taking effect from April 1994 are being placed in the Library today.

Mr. Field: As the Minister is talking about minor improvements, does he think that it is satisfactory that people living in hostels are deemed not to be living in the community and so qualify for community care grants, whereas people living rough on the streets are deemed to be living in the community and do not qualify for those grants? When the right hon. Gentleman makes what he calls minor amendments, will he include the latter group so that such people qualify for the grants?

Mr. Scott: Amendments have been placed in the Library today. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that whether or not people are enabled to resettle in the community will depend on the care that they have been receiving hitherto. Many hostels provide such care and those who move from them into the wider community certainly have an entitlement to community care grants, subject, of course, to the flexibility of the fund.

Pensioners (Home Ownership)

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the proportion of pensioners who own their own homes; and what estimate he has made of how this is likely to change over the next 20 years.

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the proportion of pensioners who are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgages.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): Information for the year 1990–91—the latest available—shows that an estimated 48 per cent. of all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgages. The comparable figure in 1979 was 37 per cent. We expect the rising trend in home ownership among pensioners to continue during the next 20 years.

Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, even among pensioners on lower incomes, around a quarter own a home valued at about £25,000? Does he agree that that is evidence that home ownership among pensioners is spreading, thanks to the policies of the Government?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Home ownership among pensioners has spread and will continue to do so because of the factors already described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—the growth of occupational pension provision and income from savings. Those developments have occurred because we have had a Government who have encouraged diversity of pension provision and ensured low inflation so that savings are actually worth something.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given demonstrate the spread of ownership among pensioners and the extent to which they are better off than their predecessors? Will he also confirm that almost all pensioners now have a television, most have a telephone and a large majority have washing machines? Is not that a tribute to the success of the Government's policies?

Mr. Hague: Again, my hon. Friend is right. Pensioner households now have a great many more of the things that matter to quality of life—for example, 90 per cent. have a

telephone, whereas in 1979 barely half of pensioner households owned one. The number of pensioner households with cars has nearly doubled since 1979 and the percentage in the bottom decile of income distribution has fallen from 31 to 11 per cent. Those dramatic improvements seem to have escaped Opposition Members' notice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that a real measure of prosperity would be how many pensioners bought their houses after they became pensioners; how many had their houses bought for them by members of their family for investment purposes; and how many houses were bought by members of the Tory party looking for a fast buck, such as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)?

Mr. Hague: What matters to pensioners is living in homes where they do not have a mortgage to pay. What matters to them is having all the household durables and other goods that we have mentioned, which make a big difference to their living standards. We have seen tremendous improvements in those standards.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that about 390,000 pensioners in Strathclyde—including my mother, incidentally—voted no in the referendum on the future of water services in Strathclyde? Many of those pensioners own their own houses and are being ignored by the Government. Why?

Mr. Hague: We would not dare to ignore the hon. Gentleman's mother; I can assure him of that. Pensioners in Strathclyde will have shared with pensioners in the rest of the country the improvements in living standards to which we have already referred, with more owning their homes, more having cars, more having telephones and many having much greater incomes.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he plans to cap housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: As the House knows, the Department is conducting a fundamental review of all social security expenditure. No decisions have been made and the Government will consult widely as and when proposals are ready. We have no plans to cap housing benefit.

Mr. Miller: I hope that that is a stronger promise than we had from the Ministers on VAT, and that they do not renege on commitments in that area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. The Minister should realise that the Government's own policies have allowed the benefit to increase; the deregulation of private sector rents has been the cause of that. The Minister should ensure, in liaison with his colleagues, that that is taken into account in the review and that there is no capping and no cuts whatever in the benefit.

Mr. Scott: Far from anticipating cuts, we expect that, by the end of the decade, expenditure on housing benefit is likely to increase from £7.3 billion to between £10 billion and £12 billion, so one can see growth in that area. I do, however, think that there is merit in concentrating subsidy for housing on individuals and their circumstances rather than entirely on bricks and mortar.

Mr. Willetts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's figures show spending on rent allowance increasing by 7.1 per cent. a year and spending on rent rebates increasing by 5.5 per cent. a year until the year 2000, and that that shows the need for tight control over housing benefit spending?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that that is true, and we have taken steps to enable local authorities to take action to prevent the meeting of very high rents where luxurious accommodation or over-generous provision of space is currently being subsidised by the taxpayer.

Family Poverty

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received over social security provision to deal with family poverty.

Mr. Lilley: From time to time, I receive copies of reports and studies from various institutes and other organisations about low-income families.

Mr. Winnick: But is not it a disgrace that, whereas in 1979, 9 per cent. of households had incomes below half the national average, the figure is now 25 per cent.—nearly a threefold increase in poverty? Does not that show that, for many people, the Tory Government since 1979 have been a curse?

Mr. Lilley: That is nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There has been a rise in living standards across the country. The average increase in income is about 35 per cent. in real terms. The figures that the hon. Gentleman cites do not reveal any worsening of people's real position—simply a change in the distribution of income, which is occurring in many other countries, too. I urge him to look closely at the figures; he will find that, in the bottom 10 per cent. of households, there are 500,000 reporting zero or negative incomes, mainly consisting of self-employed people, who are none the less able to consume, on average, more than the average person in the population as a whole.

Mr. Dicks: With regard to those benefits, can my right hon. Friend confirm whether it is true that a certain Mr. Gerry Adams is receiving social security benefits while he is able to fly halfway round the world to decry the Government? Will he examine that situation and ensure that he is taken off those benefits immediately?

Mr. Lilley: I cannot comment on individual cases, but I will refer the question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has responsibility for social security in the Province. I am sure that if there is any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone in that area it will be inquired into.

Mr. Ingram: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study in detail the report produced last week by his Department, which showed that £2 billion in benefits remain unclaimed in 1991? Is he prepared to accept that such a shortfall in take-up increases the extent of family poverty in this country? Instead of treating the problem with complacency, as his Department did last week, is he now prepared to accept that the Department has a responsibility and a duty to seek out those many claimants who do not take up the benefits and assist them in so doing?

Mr. Lilley: We do not deal with that matter complacently. We are pleased that some 90 per cent. of benefit available is taken up. We want to ensure that those who, for any reason, are less able, knowledgeable or well equipped to claim benefit have the relevant knowledge to enable them to claim. We have been encouraging an increased uptake, particularly in family credit, with some success. That benefit helps people back into work, which means that, ultimately, they draw less benefit from the state but are better off because they are in work. Thus, everybody is better off: the person concerned, the taxpayer and the economy as a whole. We are encouraging that process further.

Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to target benefit towards those in genuine need and that that policy is widely supported throughout the country? Will he further confirm that, since the Government have been in office, low-income families have benefited from family credit, income support and other benefits, and have done quite well within society because of what the Government have done to help them?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We must try to ensure that the benefit goes to those in need. That objective must be shared by all hon. Members. We have targeted benefits towards low-income families, to whom the extra benefit since 1988 is now worth £1 billion a year. For a typical low-income household, that is worth £13 a week more than it received under the previous regime.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce an independent appeal procedure to the Child Support Agency system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lilley: The Child Support Agency was introduced to ensure that parents meet their responsibility for the financial maintenance of their children where they can afford to do so. It replaced an inconsistent, often unreliable system that resulted in a drastic decline in maintenance payments over the last decade.
There is already the right of appeal, on the basis of an incorrect application of the formula, against a decision of a child support officer, to an independent tribunal.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Secretary of State prepared to accept that the changes to the Child Support Act 1991 implemented in February have totally failed to deal with the extensive criticism of the Act? Does he accept that there must be further fundamental changes if public confidence in the Act is to be restored?

Mr. Lilley: The changes that we introduced in February have already benefited some 30,000 or 40,000 people as a result of a direct reduction in the amount that they were required to pay. Many more people who receive assessments in the future will benefit. Extra help will also be provided in the form of phasing, for which people are now applying. That will be welcomed by those with second families who already have maintenance agreements.
If the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that such a measure can be introduced with no criticism whatever, he is mistaken. In every other country where such a system has been introduced—Australia, New Zealand and various states of America—it has met with criticism. I remind the


hon. Gentleman that, since we introduced those changes, there has been criticism from lone parents who naturally receive less when absent parents pay less.

Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend will be aware that I support the principle of the Child Support Agency. Is he aware that, in a small number of cases, people may be better off unemployed than in employment if they pay what the Child Support Agency asks for? Will he look at that aspect?

Mr. Lilley: That was an aspect with which we tried to deal when we introduced changes in February. We nearly quadrupled the amount above income support level below which the income of an absent parent's second family cannot fall. We have increased the increment above that level which they can keep. That makes it difficult for people to find themselves in the position to which my hon. Friend refers. But, as I have made clear previously, we are keeping the matter under continual review as we want to ensure that we are aware of any continuing problems.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State is right that there is a limited appeal system that will allow people to take cases to tribunals, but there is no appeal system for hardship. If the Government allowed a hardship tribunal for people who were asked to pay more than they could possibly afford, people would be given a chance to argue their case before an independent body. That would also provide the Government with better evidence of how badly the Act is turning out in practice for people with second families who are being blown apart by the sums of money that they are being asked to pay.

Mr. Lilley: We hope that, as a result of our changes and of the original proposals, endorsed by all parties represented in the House, people will have enough income left, after paying their child maintenance, to meet their other commitments. I am, however, keeping that matter under continual review. We must beware of going back to the discretionary system under which, in effect, the whole burden of child maintenance was transferred to the taxpayer. Indeed, we cannot go back to it: it betrayed the children, the parents caring for them and the taxpayer.

Mr. Brazier: I support my right hon. Friend's robust stance on this matter, but may I draw his attention to one anomaly that needs a fresh look—the problem of parents who are paying yet who believe that the money is not being spent on the children? At present, no avenue is open to such parents; I know of two constituency cases. Will my right hon. Friend look again at a system for dealing with such cases so that people can be sure that the money is being spent on the children?

Mr. Lilley: This is a difficult issue and the problem applied under the old system, too. Essentially, a court awards the primary responsibility of caring for a child to one parent, and the money transferred in maintenance, under a court order or under a Child Support Agency order, has then to be allocated for the child by that parent. But I take my hon. Friend's point and I will look at it further.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister realise that the growing public anger, dismay and despair are undermining confidence in the Child Support Agency system and putting at risk the very principles of responsible parenting that that system was brought into being to buttress? Does

he accept that there is, in the name of justice, a need for a system of redress for people who find that maintenance demands are out of line with their ability to pay?
The Minister referred to the criticism that greeted the Australian system. Does he recall that, two or three years into the operation of that system, the Australians successfully introduced a review officer procedure to deal with some of the injustices and difficulties that we are encountering? If there is a review, when will we see its outcome?

Mr. Lilley: We discussed that issue in a full day's debate in the House a month ago. It became clear then that the hon. Gentleman's idea of a review system was very different from that practised in Australia, which is extremely limited, and which in some ways means a lesser alleviation of the burden on absent parents than is provided under our present system.

Mrs. Roe: Has my right hon. Friend seen the article by Liz Lightfoot in The Sunday Times yesterday, headed
Child Support Agency cleared of suicides blame"?
Does he share my regret that misleading and sensational reporting by the tabloid press has distracted attention from the excellent work that the Child Support Agency is doing to ensure that maintenance is paid to thousands of mothers and their children?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that article. I read it, and I think that it would be well worth many people's time to read it. Suicide is always a terrible tragedy and a terrible shock for the family and friends left behind. But it is monstrous to try to use it as a weapon in a political campaign against an agency—which, incidentally, had the wholehearted support of the House—especially when it emerges that the evidence for some of the claims is, to say the least, flimsy.
We in the Government do not comment on particular cases; we will continue not to do so. I hope that others will be more responsible in their treatment of areas in which bereavement is involved.

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many assessment forms for the Child Support Agency have been completed.

Mr. Scott: In the period 5 April 1993 to 31 January 1994, the Child Support Agency issued more than 755,000 maintenance application forms to parents with care, of which more than 548,000 had been returned to the agency by 31 January 1994.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Does he realise that he is only just beginning to get into the water on this issue? He is barely up to his ankles. By the time the legislation really bites in 1996 he will definitely be "dans la mer jusqu' au cou" and will find it exceedingly difficult. Conservative Members are already feeling the anger and resentment of people who have been wrongly targeted. The Opposition agree that the legislation is right in principle, but it is very wrong in practice. The wrong people are being targeted and it is about time that the Government quickly withdrew from the mire into which they have led their supporters and made adjustments to the legislation before the tidal wave of resentment overcomes them completely.

Mr. Scott: That was a fair old polemical outburst from the hon. Gentleman. It is in all our interests to get this policy right. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the legislation had widespread support in principle in the House. We have already made some changes to improve the shape of the system. We are continuing to keep it under review, but I do not think that anybody can challenge the principle that those who have care of children, particularly women, should be guaranteed a regular amount of money to enable them to discharge their responsibilities.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that people working in the Child Support Agency are trained to deal with matters more thoroughly, more sympathetically and more speedily?

Mr. Scott: If my hon. Friend has any examples of cases in which he feels that individuals have not been so treated by the Child Support Agency, I hope that he will communicate them to me. The agency's aim is to deliver a speedy but sympathetic service to those who need its help.

Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister accept that those of us who genuinely believe in the principle of parental responsibility find it more difficult now to defend the Act against bad practice? Does he agree that among the reforms that we need are reforms to ensure that lone parents on income support actually receive some child support in terms of extra money so that the legislation truly becomes a Child Support Act and not, as it is now, a Treasury support Act?

Mr. Scott: I believe that it is right and to the benefit of, normally, the woman concerned who has care of children to receive a regular and guaranteed amount whether she remains at home looking after the children or takes on some employment, as many lone parents wish to do. People who started to earn money would have their benefits reduced. However, if they receive maintenance from a guaranteed source, manifestly they can use their earnings to enhance their living standards.

Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that about two thirds of the cases taken on this year by the Child Support Agency will be those in which no maintenance at all is being paid? Does not that fly in the face of the current misconception that the agency is going after only absent parents who have already faced their responsibilities?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend is right. One of the agency's great successes is that it has managed to obtain that maintenance for many women with care. It is all too easy for the Opposition to prate on about believing in the principle while seeking to undermine the practice of the agency every time they have the chance.

Personal Pensions

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total of incentive paid to those opting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into personal pensions at the current date; and what he expects the total to be five years hence.

Mr. Hague: The cost to date of the 2 per cent. incentive paid to those opting out of SERPS into personal pensions for the period 1988–1993 is estimated at £3.1 billion. The

incentive is not payable for periods after April 1993 and the total cost five years hence is therefore expected to be unchanged.

Mr. Flynn: Is not this the biggest financial deception since the South Sea Bubble—the equivalent of 100 Maxwell pension scandals? Some 3.2 million people have been bribed and conned by the Government to their financial detriment, and the Government have been aided and abetted by wickedly deceitful advertising and pressure salesmanship from the pension industry. What has the Minister to say that will help those 3.2 million future pensioners and protect others from the salesmen, the muggers in smart suits from the pension industry?

Mr. Hague: The introduction of personal pensions has given millions of people the opportunity, which they did not enjoy before, to build up a fund to add to the income available in their retirement. That is not a scandal. Personal pensions have given people greater flexibility and pension provision than ever before. If there has been mis-selling and people have taken decisions on bad advice, the Government expect the Securities and Investments Board to present acceptable, workable and effective remedies—and it is now working on them.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is any deception or scandal to concern the country, it is that successive Governments have taken national insurance contributions and spent that money, but did not use it to make provision for people in their old age? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government give people every incentive to make their own pension provisions? Does he further agree that had that been done 40 or 50 years ago, there would be far fewer elderly poor today?

Mr. Hague: I am not sure that the national insurance fund is a scandal either, but my hon. Friend is right to say that things would be better in future if people built up a fund of their own, rather than rely on a pay-as-you-go state system. The increased diversity and provision of occupational and personal provisions is about that, and the Government will continue to encourage them.

Family Credit

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many working mothers in receipt of family credit have had a reduction in financial support from an absent father following the intervention of the Child Support Agency which they have been unable to replace with increased family credit.

Mr. Scott: We estimate that fewer than 1,000 families have temporarily lost income because of the combined effects of the child support changes and the fixed award rule in family credit. Those families entitled to housing benefit or council tax benefit, or who become so entitled following the reduction in maintenance, could recover up to 85 per cent. of their loss.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for at least showing that the Department has counted the number of working women affected. Will he take it from me that the rigidity of family credit rules mean that working mothers such as one of my own constituents, Miss A—about whom I have written to the Minister—lose about £30 a week maintenance once the Child Support Agency becomes


involved? Miss A is unable to have her family credit readjusted so, as far as she is concerned, the agency and the Minister do not care a damn about her circumstances. It is no answer for her to be told by Ministers, "If you lose your job, you can claim income support." Miss A does not want to lose her job—she wants to maintain her income. It is wholly unfair that she loses £40 maintenance weekly and receives only £10 through the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Scott: The success of the family credit 26-week rule has been widely welcomed. I am reluctant to interfere with that rule because of the impact on child support matters. Of course there will be gainers as well as losers under the present arrangement.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that family credit is one of the Government's great successes? Can he say how many families receive that benefit and how many received assistance under the old family income supplement?

Mr. Scott: There has been a tremendous increase in the number of recipients over the old family income supplement. Some 500,000 families now benefit from the certainty that they will, for a 26-week period, receive a given amount of family credit support.

Mr. Hardy: How is it that the Minister can give my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) a detailed response when scores or hundreds of Members of Parliament have been waiting for detailed responses from the Child Support Agency since 1993? In many cases, injustice is matched with outrageous incompetence, which causes great concern and anxiety.

Mr. Scott: The agency's performance has steadily improved in recent months and it is intending to improve further in the weeks and months ahead. The job that the agency is doing is right, and it is doing that job increasingly well.

Social Security Reform

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures to reform social security benefits are being taken in other European countries; and what comparison he has made with his own approach to welfare reforms.

Mr. Scott: Most European countries are having to take immediate steps to contain social security costs, and balance budgets, because of rising unemployment and changes in social and demographic trends.

Mr. Rowe: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, our social security budget has risen two thirds? Is not that in remarkable contrast to the panic action by many of our European Union partners, with which we have traditionally been unfavourably compared?

Mr. Scott: I certainly agree. As all the countries of Europe and developing countries face pressures on their social security budgets, it is right that we should plan to meet those pressures sooner than many of our neighbours have been able to do, and not be compelled to adopt the short-term, panicky measures to which some of them have been driven.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister consult the authorities in Italy on whether it is the practice there to pay social

security to the leaders of the Mafia and the heads of Mafia organisations? If it is not, perhaps he would follow their example and so ensure that the leaders of Sinn Fein/IRA, including Mr. Gerard Adams, do not draw income support and thus become entitled to legal aid to challenge Government decisions?

Mr. Scott: I am not sure that I would like to delve too far into practices in Italy in respect of the Mafia, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier in these exchanges, in which he promised to draw a certain gentleman's position to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Science Investment

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to increase investment by Government and industry in British science.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government's plans were set out in the White Paper "Realising our Potential".

Mr. Flynn: How will investment in science be aided by the Government's frantic review of 53 science institutions in 90 days? Does the Minister agree with Michael Atiyah, the president of the Royal Society, who said that scientific considerations had been totally disregarded in the panic to privatise and that there was no chance of any sensible outcome of the review? Will the Government's neglect of science mean that British workers become the coolies of the Atlantic rim countries?

Mr. Waldegrave: The president of the Royal Society did not quite say that. The scrutiny study of the ownership and future of Government research establishments is, like any other scrutiny study, rightly ensuring that we get the best value for money. That must be vital for science, as for anything else.

Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the Government's investment in British science week last week, which was so successful, and on retaining the size of the science budget? Is not the commitment being shown by the Government the very commitment to British science that we require?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. As The Daily Telegraph said today, the £150,000 spent on science week was well invested. On my hon. Friend's second point, Save British Science, a pressure group, agrees that I have kept my promise to protect the science budget last year and next year. We intend to ensure that there is proper investment in the science base.

Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the budget for the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council for 1994–95; and what proportion of this is devoted to CERN.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster


announced on 2 February that the allocation for the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council was £184.9 million in 1994–95. In that year, we expect the CERN contribution to be about £56 million. That is some 30 per cent. of that funding.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister agree that research in particle physics is extremely expensive for relatively low spin-off or industrial application and that, looking to the future, we really must make every effort to persuade the United States and possibly Japan to become involved in the work of CERN?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, the British Government are doing everything possible to assist the director-general of CERN to encourage as many non-member states, including those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to join in the funding of the large hadron collider project, which is the biggest and perhaps most important super-physics project of this decade.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What part of the budget is likely to be spent with AEA Technology and the new company that will come out of AEA Technology? Can my hon. Friend give any good news to my constituents at Winfrith about new projects that they may be able to win in their new privatised stake?

Mr. Davis: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact figures for any contracts about to be won by AEA Technology. One thing I will say, however, is that there is a great deal of spin-off from CERN in practical as well as theoretical science in cryogenics, magnetic science and computers. We do the most possible to ensure that British firms get the best possible slice of that action.

Open Government

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has recently initiated with governmental colleagues on the issue of open government.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am engaged in final discussions with colleagues on the code of practice, which will come into effect on 4 April 1994.

Mr. Wareing: In view of the Chancellor's recent statement about the correctness of the telling of lies by Ministers, will the code of practice be entitled "If You Believe This, You Will Believe Anything"? May I suggest the provision of guidelines to let people know the sort of questions that may or may not be answered correctly by Ministers—or might a reprint of the Tory party's election manifesto suffice?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall seek authority from a former Member of Parliament for Bristol, South-East. I refer to Sir Stafford Cripps, whose words on those matters were, I think, definitive.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend have a word about open government with the leader of Tameside borough council who, when asked for an inquiry into the Tameside Enterprises Ltd. scandal involving old people's homes, responded to the seven councillors concerned by suspending the lot of them?

Mr. Waldegrave: That would be rather drastic action—even for you, Madam Speaker, when you are faced with some of the problems that occasionally occur.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The ombudsman's current remit in regard to the code of practice does not include personnel matters. That is understandable in relation to individual cases, but may we have an assurance that, on freedom of information principles, it will cover information relating to any material about the political backgrounds of individuals who may be subject to appointment or approval by Ministers in Departments?

Mr. Waldegrave: I should need to examine the code closely, but I think that, if the information were collected and available, it would probably be covered.

Mr. Meacher: How can the Government pretend that they support open government when five years ago—as we now know—they allowed three men to go to prison for engaging in illegal arms deals with Iran, rather than reveal that they had fully colluded in those men's activities? Furthermore, three years later they would have allowed three Matrix Churchill executives to go to prison for engaging in arms deals with Iraq, rather than reveal that they had fully colluded in those activities as well.
As Minister with responsibility for open government, the right hon. Gentleman has said that he believes that it is right, in exceptional circumstances, to lie to Parliament. Does he also think it right—even in exceptional circumstances—to allow innocent men to go to prison to protect a Government cover-up? If he does not, how can he remain a member of a Government who clearly do?

Mr. Waldegrave: I now understand why Hugo Young said, in a recent article, that the peak of the hon. Gentleman's career occurred when he was junior Minister for garbage in the last Labour Government. I think that he would be wise at least to read the evidence about public immunity that is being presented to Scott. He will find that public immunity was, quite correctly, claimed on various occasions by Labour Ministers as well.

Science And Technology

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures are being adopted to promote science and technology; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives he is taking to improve public understanding of science in the year ahead.

Mr. Waldegrave: Following the resounding success of the first national science week, which ended yesterday, the Government are already in discussion with the British Association for the Advancement of Science about funding for a second week in 1995.

Mr. Dickens: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative that produced national science, technology and engineering week, which was a great and unqualified successes. Does he agree that it was brain power that made ours one of the great industrial nations of the world and led to many inventions—radar, television and the jet engine, to mention but a few? Will he now build on the great success of his initiative by ensuring that he maintains a good budget for science, technology and engineering and makes this country once more a forerunner in the industrial world?

Mr. Waldegrave: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the week was a success: more


than 1 million people took part in events up and down the country. My hon. Friend is right, however; we need to become better at applying the ideas that we invent, so that we can earn our living by them.

Dr. Fox: I am probably the last person from whom my right hon. Friend would expect to hear the question that I am about to put to him. Will he recognise the impressive contribution that the BBC has made to national science week? Was not it a pleasant surprise to get up in the morning and see on "Breakfast News" something positive, in terms of science, about Britain, instead of Mr. Witchell's usual niggling questioning? Would not it be nice if the BBC were to do this on a regular basis?

Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the BBC on its contribution to science week. It has by far the most impressive science unit of all broadcasting organisations in the world. Its commitment to broadcasting on science and engineering is perhaps one example of what happens when a large arts-based organisation is run by an engineer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why have we allowed flat screen television technology to disappear to Japan and other countries in the far east although it was invented in the United Kingdom? Why did not we, with all the commercial resources that are available to us, develop the technology? What has the right hon. Gentleman been doing about this?

Mr. Waldegrave: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's frustration. Flat screen television technology was indeed partly, although not wholly, invented here. The objectives of the Technology Foresight exercise and of all our reforms of the research councils are to bring industry and the science base closer together so that such things happen less often.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Following the publication of the report "The Rising Tide", which is aimed at promoting opportunities for women in science, engineering and technology, can the Secretary of State tell us how he intends to implement the recommendations that it contains?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is a good report. Some of its recommendations go much wider than my Department, but I hope shortly to respond positively to some of them.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about how the privatised companies have responded to the citizens charter initiative.

Mr. David Davis: The privatised utilities have an enviable record in implementing the principles of the citizens charter. Some of their many achievements include a fall in real prices for domestic customers of 6 per cent. for electricity, 21 per cent. for gas and 35 per cent. for British Telecom. In addition, they have raised many quality initiatives, and they are excellent flag carriers for the citizens charter movement.

Mr. Riddick: I thank my hon. Friend for his first-rate reply. Is he aware that privatisation has not only brought prices down but led to a dramatic improvement in the quality of service to customers? For example, public

telephones now work, and it takes five days to have a telephone installed in one's home, instead of the six months of the bad old nationalised days. Is not it the case that privatisation has been a massive winner, not only for the Government but for consumers?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He has long been an advocate of privatisation, freedom and competition in the interests of the consumer. The competition, quality and charter initiatives are all Government policies in which these are used to the full.

Mr. Enright: I thank the Chancellor for his letter of apology for telling me an untruth the last time he was at the Dispatch Box. I should like to pursue the matter, which concerns Yorkshire Water. Why on earth was Diane Scott sacked from the chair of Ofwat in Yorkshire—the only person to be sacked—with no justification whatsoever? Three people resigned from Ofwat in protest. Is not that scandalous, and does it not deserve whatever is the opposite of a citizens chartermark?

Mr. Davis: Frankly, that is a matter for the director-general of Ofwat. The activities of the regulator have worked very much in the public interest in the past decade. At this point, I cannot comment on the activities of an individual chairman.

Mr. Mans: In relation to the citizens charter initiative, will my hon. Friend take particular note of NORWEB, which has cut its electricity prices to such an extent that, despite the imposition of VAT, pensioners in my constituency of Wyre will pay less for electricity this year than they paid last year?

Mr. Davis: I am happy to commend the activities of NORWEB, which is not alone in this matter. In fact, most electricity boards have done the same and it is reflected in the fact that gas and electricity disconnections have been more than halved and are now at the lowest level ever. That is also a reflection of the charter initiative in the utilities.

Mr. Garrett: Surely the most obvious response of privatised industries has been to increase prices, boost their directors' salaries and fire their workers? Why does not the citizens charter apply to citizens who are employees?

Mr. Davis: I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past five minutes while I have been telling the House about the reduction in prices in most of the privatised utilities. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Government Information

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the code of practice on Government information due to come into operation on 4 April.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his reply will be extensively welcomed, but is he yet in a position to say what the scope of his report will be? Will it, for example, include an account of the progress of the revised security classification system announced last week


and the extent of his success in ensuring that only those documents are restricted that genuinely need to be so classified?

Mr. Waldegrave: I had thought that the essential report would be one that gave an account of requests under the code, applications to the ombudsman and so on, but I will consider with care why my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Gunnell: Does that mean that on 4 April the permanent secretaries' handbook will be placed in the Library so that hon. Members can read the advice given to the permanent secretaries on their behaviour? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the whole of the permanent secretaries' handbook has been passed to Lord Justice Scott for his consideration?

Mr. Waldegrave: All the papers for which Sir Richard Scott has asked have been passed to him. The code of practice, which comes into play on 4 April, will mean a major freeing of public information. The Campaign for Freedom of Information which, of course, wants to go further, described the new role for the ombudsman as "a valuable step forward".

Research Councils

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress in setting up the new research councils.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am pleased to confirm to the House that the new research councils will come into being on 1 April this year, as planned.

Mr. Coombs: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the timetable for the reorganisation of the research councils set out in the White Paper last summer has been met. Are not congratulations also due to the staff of the research councils in my constituency who are enabling that to happen? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the reorganisation of the structure of the research councils, the opportunity is now offered for encouragement and for a boost to industrial competitiveness through the work of the research councils in helping industry?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend and join him in paying warm tribute to the staff of the research councils who have enabled the timetable to be met and especially, although not only, to the staff of the former Science and Engineering Research Council out of which two completely new research councils have been formed. I believe that the policy and intention set out in the White Paper will now be achieved for the good of the country.

Dr. Bray: Would not it be a poor start for the new research councils if, as a first step, some of their key

laboratories were taken from them and grouped under a civil research agency, which would remove them from application and from the science base?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, there is a wide range of different research establishments and research stations belonging either to Departments or to research councils. From time to time, it is right to examine them across the board to ascertain the best form of ownership for them, but nothing will be done to damage the long-term commitment of the research councils to basic science.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that it is often believed that there is far too much pure research in this country and not enough emphasis on getting research products into the marketplace? What is being done to enable British products to be marketed around the world?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is essential to maintain Britain's contribution to basic science, but in the area of generic and strategic research where applications are in mind, my hon. Friend is entirely right; we should bring our academic base closer to industry. That is the whole purpose of the White Paper policy.

Charterline

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with local authorities concerning the east midlands pilot scheme, charterline.

Mr. David Davis: Officials have had discussions with representatives from all public services in the pilot area, including local authorities.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the east midlands pilot scheme, charterline, costly and unused? It costs £400 to deal with a call, partly because only 10 calls are dealt with every four hours. Would not it be better if the resources were made available to the local authorities in the area, such as the North East Derbyshire council, where few phone calls are made to the charterline, which is 275th out of 295 councils in terms of resources per head made available by the Government? Is not it time to scrap that experiment?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman got one thing right in that little speech—it was an experiment or a pilot scheme. However, what he got wrong was that he added all the start-up costs to get the number that he reached. If I were in charge of the allocation of money to local authorities, I certainly would not give any more money to Derbyshire county council, which, at the previous count, according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, was owed £34 million in uncollected community charge. The interest on that alone would more than pay for charterline.

European Union

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union Foreign Ministers' meeting over the past weekend in Greece.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I welcome the opportunity to answer the private notice question of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The new presidency proposal, which I brought back last night, is for a transitional arrangement for a root-and-branch review of qualified majority voting in the 1996 intergovernmental conference. In that transitional period, the presidency and all members of the Council will be legally bound to work for an agreement on the basis of a 23 vote minority. No specified time limit is set, although the Council will be required to do all in its power to reach a decision on the basis of a 23 vote blocking minority in a reasonable time.
Perhaps I can spell that out more fully. [Interruption.] With pleasure—with growing pleasure. There was a constructive discussion at that informal meeting of Foreign Ministers at Ioannina at the weekend. As a result of the discussion, the presidency has circulated the compromise proposal to which I referred and a copy of that text has been placed in the Library of the House. The presidency has asked all member states to tell it by tomorrow evening whether they can accept the proposal.
I am sometimes asked whether qualified majority voting is more or less important than the enlargement of the Union to include Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway. The answer is that there are major British interests at stake in both areas. We want enlargement to go ahead, while adequately protecting our interests on qualified majority voting. The Cabinet will discuss the question at its meeting tomorrow morning. Let me explain not what the Cabinet will decide, because I cannot predict that, but the nature of the compromise which has been proposed and on which we shall have to take a decision tomorrow. The original—[Interruption.] I am sure that Opposition Members are following this answer with the care that it deserves.
The original presidency proposal was for a blocking minority of 27 to apply from 1 January next year and to last indefinitely, without any restriction or any qualification. After discussion, what the presidency now proposes—after, I must accept, some argument—is as follows. First, there will be a transitional arrangement between the date of accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden and the end of the 1996 intergovernmental conference. At that conference, there will be a root-and-branch review of the system of qualified majority voting, including not only the weighting of votes between countries, which had already been agreed at the Brussels summit last December, but—and this is new—the threshold for agreement; that is, the definition of majority and minority.
Secondly, the proposal is contained in a legally binding decision of the Council which requires the presidency, with the help of the Commission, to do all in its power to reach agreement on the basis of a 23 vote minority, taking "any initiative necessary" to achieve that objective. Thirdly,

there is no time limit for that procedure, although, if all initiatives are exhausted, the Council will be able to take a decision on the basis of a blocking minority of 27.
There have been three misconceptions, which I should like to correct. First—because of the Opposition's policy, they would be well advised to listen to this next point—we are not talking here about any threat to the veto of the United Kingdom. The only threat to the veto of the United Kingdom comes from the Opposition. The most important decisions in the European Union can be taken only by unanimity. These include the powers of the Commission and the European Parliament, the amount of money available to the European Union, and foreign and security policy initiatives.

Mr. Giles Radice: That has always been so.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman says that that has always been so. It would not be so if the Leader of the Opposition carried out the policy that he has proclaimed. That is, as the hon. Gentleman said, and remains the position. Even where the treaty specifies qualified majority voting—for single market legislation, for example—the United Kingdom retains the right to continue discussions indefinitely when our vital national interests are at stake. That right—the so-called Luxembourg compromise—is not affected by the debate over QMV any more than is the British veto.
Secondly, the Community needs qualified majority voting to carry business forward. QMV has, for example, been important in achieving the decisions needed for the completion of the single market and pursuing reform of the common agricultural policy.
Thirdly, some have asked why the issue has been addressed only recently, and why the QMV issue could not have been left alone. I should like to answer that. The present treaty specifies the level of the qualified majority at 54 votes out of 76. If the question had been left on one side—left untackled—the qualified majority, under an unamended treaty, would have been 54 votes out of 90, which is a blocking minority of 37. I am not sure that many in the House would have supported that. That means that the question had to be tackled. [Interruption.] No, those are the facts.
I cannot prejudge the view that the Cabinet will take tomorrow, because there are still matters under this heading that deeply concern us, particularly in the social area. They do not concern Opposition Members, because they seem careless of the effect on jobs of some of the measures proposed. It deeply concerns us that measures have been tabled against our interests, sometimes on a questionable legal basis. That is a different issue from the one that was discussed yesterday, but it is crucial under this same heading. The presidency proposal, which I have sketched to the House, is a compromise and one which the Cabinet will need to weigh—and will weigh—carefully tomorrow.

Dr. Cunningham: The House has rarely, if ever, heard such a squalid and dubious statement from the right hon. Gentleman. Is not the reality that it was always the case that the intergovernmental conference in 1996 would review the whole question of qualified majority voting? The answer is yes. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has won some concession on that point in the past three weeks is, frankly, just not true.
Is not it clear to all except the anti-European bigots on the Conservative Benches that Britain's overriding priority and the best interests of our country will be served by the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union, bringing net contributions to the Union budget and assisting British taxpayers in so doing?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it would have been difficult to devise a sequence of events that did more damage to Britain's interests and reputation in Europe than the confused and contradictory behaviour of the Government in the past three weeks? Is not it the truth that the Foreign Secretary's negotiating stance has been one of weakness and vacillation masquerading as strength? If this issue is so important, why was it that on every previous enlargement of the Community under the Government not a single voice was raised when the appropriate adjustment to qualified majority voting took place? Why is it so important now? Is not the honest answer that this is all to do with the deep and irreconcilable divisions in the Conservative party and nothing to do with Britain's best interests?
How can Conservative Members feel pleased with the performance of the Government, which has angered our existing European Union partners and infuriated our friends in Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what his position will be if, tomorrow, the Cabinet does not accept his recommendation—whatever it is; he has not made that clear to the House? If the Cabinet throws out this dubious mish-mash and sleight of hand tomorrow, will not Britain's position in Europe be deeply damaged and will not the right hon. Gentleman's position in the Cabinet be untenable?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has been hard at work, as I have, over the weekend, but perhaps not to such good effect. He was repetitive in his adjectives, and there was not a great deal of heat and certainly no light in what he said. He was wrong and inaccurate on his first point. The difference between what was proposed by the presidency yesterday and what was there previously on the question of 1996 is that the threshold, as well as the weighting, is to be examined. That means that contrary—

Mr. Allan Rogers: Big deal.

Mr. Hurd: It is a big deal, because it means that what we are talking about now is not a change that will last for ever, but a change to a system that will be examined root and branch, as I said, from the beginning in 1996. That is a very important point.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that in previous enlargements there has been, as it were, a mechanical uprating preserving the 70:30 proportion. The differences this time are, first, that there is more qualified majority voting than there used to be and, secondly, and perhaps more important, that the proportion of the peoples of Europe whose representatives could be outvoted in qualified majority voting has increased from something like 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. That means that the issue is more important than before. That is why we and other countries have felt bound to raise it. If we had not raised it—if we had followed the advice of the right hon. Gentleman—we would not have gained the two proposals that I have sketched today. I do not know whether the Cabinet will consider those to be adequate and I will certainly keep my counsel on the recommendation that I

shall make to the Cabinet tomorrow, but I have tried to sketch the proposal on which the Cabinet will reach a conclusion.
The right hon. Gentleman represents a party which has very recently pledged itself, through the mouth of its leader, to a change of policy by which majority voting in the Council would be the norm. Which bits of the British veto and the unanimity rule would be sacrificed by the Labour party in order to make majority voting the norm?

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the compromise, with its emphasis on the arrangements being of a transitional nature and putting off crucial decisions until 1996–which is when many of us have argued they should be taken—is a compromise worth fighting for? Does he also agree that it will be even better if he can set before us some of the areas where there will cease to be majority voting and where the powers of the Commission and the Community will be unwound so that the QMV issue becomes less important, rather than more central, as it would under the policies of the Labour party? Does he agree that if we can set out our strategy for 1996–

Madam Speaker: Order. On occasions such as this, it is important that one or two brisk questions are put to the Minister so that the many hon. Members who wish to speak have a chance of being called.

Mr. Howell: If we can set out our strategy for 1996, we shall be greatly reassured about the way that we are going towards a looser and non-federal European Union.

Mr. Hurd: Certainly it is now clear that in 1996 we shall have a fundamental review of the relationship between the weighting of votes and the threshold—that is the new point—

Dr. John Cunningham: It is not a new point.

Mr. Hurd: No, the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken about that. It will be important to get it exactly right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said. We also hope to see continuously, throughout the period, subsidiarity working in practice and the reduction in the load of legislation from the Community, which has already halved in the past 18 months. As the trends develop, they will counter the centralising trend that has worried so many of us in the past and is the rallying call of the Labour party.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that, in the run-up to the meeting in Greece, the Foreign Secretary and, in the House last week, the Prime Minister were insistent that fundamental and vital national interests were at stake, is it not utterly incomprehensible and beyond belief that a British Foreign Secretary should come to the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and say that on a matter of vital national interest—as he defined it—he will keep his own counsel about the deal that he brokered over the weekend? Who is in charge of foreign policy in the Government? It is clearly not the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hurd: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman. He grins, but he knows that he is well astray. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), using his undoubted powers of prerogative, has tabled a private notice question, which I welcome. The hon. Member for


Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and the House know perfectly well that the Cabinet will consider the matter tomorrow—[Interruption.] I do not know whether he will ever know one day, but we live under a system of collective decision taking. When the Cabinet has reflected on and analysed the matters, it will take a decision. I shall certainly not prejudge that decision today. I will prejudge the view of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party who wants Ministers to make decisions in public—there, at least, he is in line with the hon. Gentleman—without single national vetoes.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sour and embittered reaction from the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to the proposal on the agreement for qualified majority voting that my right hon. Friend has brought back from Greece—which demonstrates that the proposition based on a 23 vote is legally binding and transitional—shows that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party have no interest in promoting Britain's interest in Europe?

Mr. Hurd: They do not. The Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties propose, in their European manifestos, to make concessions and give away British rights that no one is asking us to give away. I am baffled by their attitude.
We have two British objectives: enlargement and the protection of the legitimate rights of minorities. We have had to work hard and, I must say, painfully to achieve a reconciliation between them. The Cabinet will decide tomorrow whether this set of proposals is adequate for that purpose. I would add an area of concern that was not covered yesterday—concern over social policy and our belief that the proposals on that front go beyond the base of the existing treaty.

Mr. Peter Shore: While the roots of the problem are the transfer of powers from this country to Europe and the extension of qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers, surely it is absurd for our continental friends to insist on a final solution now and on the adoption of a formula of 27 when they do not even know whether four, three, two or one of the applicant countries will be allowed by their people to join, following a referendum. Is not it equally absurd that they should insist on that when they know perfectly well that, under the Maastricht treaty, there will be a further intergovernmental conference in 1996?

Mr. Hurd: Precisely. We are talking about the regime during the transition and whether the voting structure should be mechanically uprated, as it has been, or there should be restrictions and qualifications on uprating, which is what we and the Spaniards have proposed.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): Without prejudicing Cabinet discussions and the decision tomorrow, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the difficult compromise—the transitional arrangements—that he brought back? In developing the single market, will not it be in British interests, from time to time, to ensure that legislation is passed after enlargement with a 70 per cent. majority, rather than requiring a 75 per cent. majority?
Would he not like legislation on more freedom and competition in telecommunications throughout Europe? We would not want that to be blocked by three countries.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but congratulations are a shade premature. I am grateful for his having grasped the essence of the problem. He is right in his second question. A great deal needs to be done on some matters—those connected with liberalisation, of which he gave an example, and with the common agricultural policy, before we can say that that makes common sense. On both those issues we need, and will continue to need, qualified majority voting.
We may find ourselves in the minority on other issues and it is those on which the dispute centres. I would home in on our concern about social issues, which is why my right hon. Friend's congratulations are a little premature.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Given that the British and Irish Governments are bound together in what they like to call an absolutely unique relationship, deriving from various treaties, agreements and declarations, does the Foreign Secretary feel that he is now entitled to the whole-hearted support of Irish Government representatives in the remaining negotiations?

Mr. Hurd: I have kept in close touch with Mr. Spring on this. A week ago I was in Dublin and we discussed those matters. Expectation is putting it a bit high, but I think that we can expect friendly understanding.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, after the successful conclusion of the GATT round, the greatest threat to the European Union comes from increased competition from the United States and the far east? It would be folly to burden industry throughout the Union with the extra costs that would be imposed by social legislation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that France and Germany were originally in favour of a 23 blocking vote? Will he further confirm that the transitional arrangement will last until 1996, when all the voting procedures can be reviewed?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is correct on both points. Countries are entirely entitled to take a view and then alter it. That is what has happened.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: If it is only a transitional arrangement to last two years, what on earth is all the turmoil in which the Government have got themselves involved about? As, in 1996, the Government are liable to be in a minority of 15 to one rather than 11 to one, is it not a fact that the humiliating antics that the right hon. Gentleman has been required to perform have nothing to do with European union and everything to do with Conservative disunion?

Mr. Hurd: I rather miss the right hon. Gentleman's style and that question was a little souvenir of happy times in the past. He has not grasped the essential point, because when we started on the discussion it was by no means clear that we were talking about a transitional arrangement. It is clear now. It is clear in the presidency document that was issued yesterday that not only the weighting, but the thresholds—that is the definition of majority and minority—will be up for discussion in 1996. That was not clear before and it would not have been made clear unless I had done a bit of arguing meanwhile.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a mere examination of the issue of the blocking minority at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 would be inadequate, because what should be done is to include those arrangements in the accession treaty so that when we come to 1996 we can guarantee that we would be able to unravel any decision arrived at in the meantime?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I do not think that it would have been sensible in the context of the enlargement negotiations to reopen the question and try to reach a definitive conclusion on it. That would simply have meant that there was no enlargement for many years to come. It is now agreed that the basic issue—my hon. Friend is quite right about its importance—will have to be examined, root and branch, from the beginning, in 1996. We are therefore talking about a transitional regime to allow four countries, for whose entry we have worked under different Prime Ministers for many years, to come in and take part in the negotiations and discussions in 1996.

Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, under the proposals on offer, the blocking minority on qualified majority issues will be 27?

Mr. Hurd: It will be 27, constrained, as I have explained to the House, by the fact that we are talking about a transitional period and by the legal obligation that all concerned will enter into to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to the minority in cases where there is a minority of 23 to 27.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Foreign Secretary be careful to emphasise to the Cabinet tomorrow that qualified majority voting is basically to do with minor issues? Will he also remind his colleagues that when the blocking minority went up from 18 to 23, there was virtually no dissent? Is not it true that his Spanish colleague yesterday regarded the compromise that my right hon. Friend has announced today as a major triumph?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, the Spaniards argued very long and hard, as we did, and the Spanish Minister came to the conclusion yesterday that the result was satisfactory. I was not in a position to do that and I am not in a position to do so today, because there are concerns that the Spaniards do not share, which are not common to them, which are of considerable concern to us.
My right hon. Friend spoke about QMV relating to minor issues, but there is no doubt that some of those issues are important. They are not, however, the really big issues such as the amount of resources available to the Community, the powers of the Commission or the Parliament or foreign policy initiatives, which, under the present system, which we intend to maintain, require unanimity. Some of the issues relating to QMV are important, however, which is why we spent so much time discussing the matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that one thing is certain—he is a well-groomed poodle at least? I suppose that the Duke of York was the same; when he was up he was up, and when he was down he was down., and when he was halfway up

the hill he was neither up nor down. Thank God that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and this Cabinet rabble were not around in 1940.

Mr. Hurd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during the past half hour or so, he has, on a number of occasions, referred to a decision that will be taken in Cabinet tomorrow? Will the House have any say on what the blocking minority might be for affairs in Europe that will affect this country?

Mr. Hurd: The House will be asked to approve legislation later to enable the Government to ratify the treaty of accession.

Mr. George Foulkes: As the Foreign Secretary knows better than any of his Cabinet colleagues the pros and cons of the compromise as it affects the United Kingdom, why is he not prepared to tell this elected House of Commons what recommendation he will make to the Cabinet?

Mr. Hurd: Because we operate a system of collective decision taking and responsibility.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets the members of the Cabinet tomorrow, will he remind them, as he has reminded the House, that we still retain the veto, and that experience under General de Gaulle demonstrated very clearly that when he used the veto in the best interests of France he was never accused of being disloyal to Europe and France was never accused of being disloyal to Europe? It is important that, when members of the Cabinet make their decision, they remember that it is not only being at the centre of Europe that is important and that the outcome is vital to Britain's best interests.

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is important to make it clear in this discussion that the veto—the unanimity rule—is not at stake, is not in jeopardy, except to the extent that the Opposition parties propose to give it away.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What, for the Foreign Secretary, is the single most important element in what he sees as the British national interest?

Mr. Hurd: We need to preserve the role of national states and national Parliaments in making a success of the European Union. It was much easier in the old days, when to be a good European one was almost automatically a centraliser; when one believed that gradually power should be moved step by step to the centre. We now know—

Dr. John Cunningham: Answer the question.

Mr. Hurd: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful question in what I hope is a thoughtful way.
Now we have to devise a new model, because the centralising model has run aground. It obviously does not correspond to what most people in Europe want. The new model is a more difficult one to construct because it is unique. It will not be like the United States, Canada or Australia. That is what Conservative Members are trying to do—to construct and make persuasive a distinctive, positive, European model of the type of Europe with which this country can feel at home.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in pursuit of that objective, his stance, in trying to secure that the larger populations do not suffer a disbenefit in relation to small populations coming into the Community in relatively large numbers, is an absolutely key factor in determining proper equality in the European democracies? Should not he be congratulated on standing on that issue?

Mr. Hurd: We have ensured, I think, that in 1996 there will be, as I have said, a root-and-branch examination of that point. I think that there is a general feeling that the present structure needs to be examined fundamentally, and that will happen.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Foreign Secretary stated that the Luxembourg compromise was not affected by this scheme. Most people assumed that the Luxembourg compromise had been abandoned at the signing of the Single European Act. If that is not the case and the Luxembourg compromise remains in force, why is the latest scheme necessary?

Mr. Hurd: We certainly believe that the Luxembourg compromise remains in place, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it concerns only the vital interests of the country. The importance of this provision is that it extends to all matters that could be covered by qualified majority voting.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the meaning of the words in the declaration:
within a reasonable time and without prejudicing obligatory time limits"?
What do those words mean in practice?

Mr. Hurd: There will be an obligation on all members of the Council, whether they are in a majority or a minority in the situation envisaged, to work for an acceptable agreement within a reasonable time. I resisted efforts by some delegations to define that in terms of two or three months because it seemed to be unnecessarily restrictive. The obligation set out under paragraph c) of the proposed decision is not defined in time, so the obligation to seek a satisfactory agreement is unlimited.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the words "obligatory time limits" refer to those parts of the treaty which, once the Council has taken a decision, go to the Parliament and the Parliament comes back with amendments which the Council must discuss within specified time limits. What is not time limited is the time within which the Council takes its initial view. That is the crucial point from our point of view.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Has not the Foreign Secretary set a constitutional precedent in telling the House that there will be a Cabinet meeting tomorrow on a crucial foreign policy issue, giving us the details of the agenda and saying that there will be a vote? Should he not take us a little further on such a crucial matter and say which way he will vote? As the whole argument is not about Europe but about the Tory leadership election, will he report to the House on how each of the Tory leadership contenders voted?

Mr. Hurd: Would the hon. Gentleman really have been content if I had taken the line, "No, I can't answer a PNQ today" and had given the House no indication of what had happened? Of course not. I have answered the private

notice question of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Obviously, as I have said before several times, decisions are taken in this country collectively by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is accountable to the House.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend giving us this assurance: that by this compromise, and provided that all four of those countries join in the next year or so, Britain will concede no power or control over any item of European legislation, which it does not already have, between now and the conference in 1996?

Mr. Hurd: There is no proposal to extend the range of qualified majority voting. I cannot be certain what proposals coming forward in the next two or three years will fall within the QMV. If—and it is still an "if'—this compromise were thought to be acceptable, I would know that we were talking about a transitional period and that we had a legally binding protection. It is for the Cabinet to decide, on our behalf, whether that is thought to be adequate. Those were the terms of my remit, so I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend an assurance covering all kinds of legislation that there may be in the future.
The volume of legislation is falling rather fast. We are gradually and increasingly applying subsidiarity and we are confident that, in many of those matters, including the areas that I have outlined, we shall be in the majority and not the minority.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the negotiations on enlargement have been going on for many months and as the Government agreed to the accession of the four countries, when did the Foreign Secretary suddenly discover that the Prime Minister had signed away such vital British interests as to cause great offence to those countries, which we have been trying to get into the European Union?

Mr. Hurd: I am not following the hon. Member. We have been taking this stance consistently since the enlargement negotiations began.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if a vital interest of the United Kingdom should arise in the interim period, he will use what is known as the Luxembourg compromise to safeguard our interests? Bearing in mind the fact that my right hon. Friend wants a root-and-branch review by 1996, would it not be a good idea to argue that the review should be brought forward, and discussed now?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks. We believe, as I have already made clear, that the Luxembourg compromise continues and is an important safeguard for member states.
To answer my hon. Friend's second question, we have just had a long and, I would say, bruising discussion across Europe about the treaty of Maastricht. It has just entered into force, with its different pillars, its intergovernmental co-operation and its powers for the Community. We thought—indeed, everybody agreed—that it would not be sensible at this stage to try to define for ever the relationship between votes and population. We therefore did not want to hold up the enlargement to include Finland, Austria, Norway and Sweden while that was done; but it is now clear that it has to be done, and it has to be tackled in 1996.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not the root of the problem the fact that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have consistently tried to be pretend that we can be a community of nation states while the treaties, especially the last one, expressly forbid that? Why does the Foreign Secretary keep on talking about the Luxembourg compromise when he knows it is not in the treaty? Surely the Community is authoritarian, centralist and barely democratic—and more people in the country and in the Conservative party are beginning to learn that. It is when the Government try to do something about it that they run into trouble.

Mr. Hurd: I do not want to make this point again, but I have to when such criticism is levelled at me. The hon. Gentleman must sort this out with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. If a Labour Government were elected, this sort of discussion would become wholly secondary to the great, extra concessions, out of the unanimity rule, which the Labour party proposes.
The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on the issue over and over again. He should look at what is happening—look at the sort of proposal that the Home Secretary made last week on fraud, not intergovernmentally but under the treaty. He should look at how we are tackling questions such as South Africa, the middle east and Bosnia. He will see that it is not right to say that these matters are being sucked into a centralising machine. On the contrary, for the first time they are being tackled under the new treaty, on the basis of co-operation between Governments.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is it not typically honest, courageous and responsible of my right hon. Friend to have brought this difficult matter to the forefront of the negotiations in Brussels before the four countries that have applied to join have joined? Has he not, in his negotiations, enhanced Britain's and every country's powers to safeguard itself against unwelcome decisions taken under qualified majority voting?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's epithets. I find that I lurch from being the subject of excessive praise to being the subject of excessive criticism—I am in the middle of such a lurch now.
Once my hon. Friend got his compliments, for which I am grateful, out of the way, his underlying point was right. The issue could not be left entirely on one side in the enlargement negotiations, because the result would have been a blocking minority of 37; it therefore had to be tackled. On the other hand, we did not feel—nobody felt—that this was the occasion to try to tackle it outright, because that would have meant, and will mean eventually, a discussion lasting a long time. But the issue is now quite clearly and fundamentally on the agenda for 1996.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he looks increasingly ridiculous presenting a climbdown as a success? Do not he and his right hon. Friends recall that the last time there was an

extension of qualified majority voting in Europe the Bill in question was guillotined through the House by him and his right hon. Friends? The Single European Act was guillotined, and he and all his right hon. Friends voted for that extension of QMV without a murmur.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in December of last year he and the Prime Minister signed a declaration in Brussels, as follows:
As well as examining the legislative role of the European Parliament and the other matters envisaged in the Treaty of European Union, the intergovernmental conference to be convened in 1996 will consider the questions relating to the number of members of the Commission and the weighting of the votes of the Member States in the Council. It will also consider any measures deemed necessary to facilitate the work of the institutions and guarantee their effective operation.
The right hon. Gentleman agreed to that statement in December last year. Why does he pretend to the House that he is saying something different and new now? Will he also make clear that the question of Britain's so-called veto, the need for unanimity on those decisions that require it is not, and has never been, in question during the discussions? Will he withdraw the false accusation that the Labour party has agreed to give up its power of veto in those matters? It is completely dishonest for the right hon. Gentleman to say that. Is not it also clear—[Interruption.]—as this fiasco behind him continues, that the Conservative party—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is at my discretion whether he has a couple of minutes for a winding-up speech. I hope that he will now use those two minutes briskly.

Dr. Cunningham: If Conservative Members stop shouting, I will be able to do that.
Is not it clear that the divisions in the Conservative party and the Cabinet divide not only the Tory Government but Britain from Europe and from our best interests in the European Union?

Mr. Hurd: Thanks in part to the right hon. Gentleman, as sometimes happens in the House, an occasion that is certainly important and difficult and might have been more difficult has become rather a pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman is so busy polishing his questions that he does not listen to the answers that they receive. He correctly quotes last December's declaration in Brussels, but was not listening to the answer that I gave to an identical question by one of his hon. Friends: the proposal coming back from the presidency also refers to the crucial question of the threshold—the definition of the majority and minority. If, even on the second time, the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the importance of that addition, he should go back to his homework. The right hon. Gentleman's leader signed a paper on 6 November which stated:
For the first time we are fighting the European elections as the party of European Socialists …We want … majority voting within the Council to be the norm.
What on earth does that mean if it does not mean giving up unanimity?

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to guidelines which have been issued by the Charity Commissioners and which make two disturbing points.
The first is that charities must not conduct publicity campaigns indicating how individual Members of Parliament or parties have voted on a particular issue as a means of applying public pressure on those Members or on the Government. The second is that charities must not distribute pro-forma letters for people to sign and send to Members or Ministers.
It seems intolerable that a public body that is funded by the taxpayer should seek to limit the right of members of the public, including taxpayers, to know how Members of Parliament vote, not least on the distribution of moneys that have been contributed by taxpayers. Secondly, it must be equally worrying that a public body funded by the taxpayer is seeking to restrict the democratic right of taxpayers and other members of the public to influence Members of Parliament.
The guidelines have been issued with immediate effect and the Charity Commissioners, rather unusually I understand, are asking for comments after the guidelines have been implemented. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on those guidelines and the points that I made, with a view to making a statement on whether you deprecate the implications of the guidelines for the general public and a large number of charitable organisations.

Madam Speaker: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is complaining about legal advice given to charities by the Charity Commissioners. That matter is not for me, and it would be most unwise for me to comment from the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must find another way to pursue the issue.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to a matter that may be of precedence, in relation to powers and privileges of the House. This morning, the Secretary of State for the Environment opened a new railway in the docklands that passes through my constituency. That event was well known and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was well received.
However, the Secretary of State proceeded to a second event relating to the inauguration of a housing project ultimately designed to accommodate 5,000 people in 1,500 dwellings. It is known as an urban village, and is controversial. Unfortunately, the mayor of the borough was not informed of, or invited to, the inauguration of that large scheme, and neither was the Member of Parliament concerned.
I hope and expect that no such action by the Executive in relation to the people of this country represented in the House will recur, with such short notice or no notice at all being given.

Madam Speaker: It is a convention of the House that all Members of Parliament, including Ministers, inform other hon. Members when they are to attend a public function in a constituency other than their own. As it happens, my office always notifies a right hon. or hon. Member if I am to attend a function in his or her constituency. It is incumbent on Ministers to do likewise.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You heard the Foreign Secretary say that the Cabinet will deal with the European Union voting issue tomorrow morning and that the result will be communicated to the Council of Ministers.
The House will rise for the recess on Thursday, and Wednesday will be the last day to consider matters not related to Adjournment debates. Is it not essential that a statement on the Cabinet's decision is made to the House, not merely referred to during Prime Minister's Question Time?
If it was right and proper—and it was—for the House to hear from the Foreign Secretary, how much more important it is that the House should know of the Cabinet's decision. Apart from anything else, it will be communicated immediately to the media, so why not to the House? I trust that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary will make a statement tomorrow.

Madam Speaker: I make it clear that it was I who granted today's private notice question and that the Foreign Secretary appeared at the Dispatch Box in response to that. As the hon. Gentleman must know, I have no authority to summon a Minister to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. I see that there is a collection of senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and no doubt they have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER BILL [MONEY] (No.2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—

(a) for making payments in connection with measures intended to prevent crime or reduce the fear of crime;
(b) for defraying or contributing to the costs incurred by local authorities in providing, or arranging for the provision of, accommodation for restricting the liberty of children; and
(c) for making payments in respect of the costs incurred by local authorities or probation committees in providing supervision for offenders subject to secure training orders.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

As amended (in Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 73

DISPLAYING, PUBLISHING, SELLING OR DISTRIBUTING ETC. OBSCENE MATERIAL IN SCOTLAND: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT

'. In section 51(3) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (which makes persons convicted in summary proceedings in Scotland of certain offences relating to obscene material liable, among other penalties, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months and persons convicted there on indictment of such offences liable, among other penalties, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years), for the words "3 months" there shall be substituted the words "6 months" and for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "3 years".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, hon. Members on both sides—including the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who for many years has pursued the interests of safeguarding children—rightly expressed the view that the maximum penalties for certain offences of obscenity and indecency are inadequate. The Scottish Office has sympathy with that view and neither it nor the Government opposed an amendment to double to six months the maximum duration of the new custodial penalty for possession of child pornography.
Unfortunately, whether by accident or design, that amendment neglected to address the position in Scotland, with the result that the Bill introduces a three-month custodial penalty in Scotland and a six-month custodial penalty south of the border. The first reason for the new clause is that the Government intend to remove that discrepancy with an appropriate amendment to be debated later on Report. New clause 73 is, to a limited extent, consequential on that amendment relating to possession.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that all such cases—let us hope that there are very few—will be heard in a sheriff court?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: That is a probability. I shall have to check up on that point. I will write to the hon. Member when I have done so.
The new clause is consequential because, in our view, it would be wrong to leave the maximum summary penalty for trading in obscene material at three months' imprisonment under section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, when we are introducing a maximum summary penalty for simple possession of child pornography of six months' imprisonment under section 52A of that Act. So new clause 73 raises the maximum summary penalty for an offence under section 51 from three months' to six months' imprisonment. At the same time, it raises the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment from two to three years' imprisonment.
Whether a case is in the sheriff court or a higher court will depend on the severity of the circumstances. Were the law officers to consider that a case merited an indictment, of course it would go to a higher court.
The new penalties are in line with the penalties that already exist in England and Wales for similar offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The equalisation of penalties for such offences north and south of the border is, in our view, sensible. It provides the second reason for new clause 73. We do not want to provide any incentive to set up this sort of business north of the border. Such an incentive might be provided if Scotland continued to have lower penalties than England and Wales.
The third reason for the new clause rests simply on its merits. We believe that the trade in obscene material is loathsome. I know that that view is shared by Opposition Members and the House as a whole. Children must not be exploited. They must be suitably protected in the interests of the well-being of our country. We believe that the new penalties will signal Parliament's revulsion, deter some who might otherwise be tempted to engage in that trade, and enable the courts in Scotland to deal appropriately with the worst offenders. So I strongly commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 74

COST OF SECURE ACCOMMODATION

'. After section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there shall be inserted the following section—"Cost of secure accommodation. 61A.—(1) The Secretary of State may, in relation to any costs incurred by a local authority in discharging their duty under section 61(1) above—

(a) defray such costs to such extent as he considers appropriate in any particular case;
(b) defray a proportion to be determined by him from time to time of such costs; and
(c) defray or contribute to such costs in accordance with a tariff to be determined by him from time to time.

(2) The Secretary of State may require any person providing secure accommodation to transmit to him, at such times and in such form as he may direct, such particulars as he may require with respect to any costs to which this section applies.

(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of money provided by Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment (a), in line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Amendment (b), in line 6, leave out
'such costs to such extent as he considers appropriate' and insert 'all reasonable costs'.

Amendment (c), leave out lines 8 to 11. Government new clause 79 and Government amendments Nos. 53, 54, 52 and 57.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope that new clause 74 will command considerable support on both sides of the House. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to the proper financing of our policies. We are concerned that the normal methods of


local government finance are not necessarily the best way of distributing resources required to fund the revenue costs of local authority secure accommodation for remands.
The local authority associations have pointed out that the revenue support grant mechanism is not necessarily sensitive enough to reflect the differences between local authorities in terms of the potential numbers of young people who may in future be remanded to secure accommodation. Some local authorities might have large numbers of young people remanded in secure accommodation and others might have none. As hon. Members know, the costs of secure accommodation are high; while the Government will be taking steps to contain them, it is important that the system of financing is as effective as possible.
The purpose of new clause 74 is to give central Government a power to reimburse costs incurred by local authorities in accommodating juveniles subject to court-ordered secure remands. The Government have not yet determined how the powers will be used in practice. A decision will be made after full consultation with the local authority associations. The Government have felt it important to use this opportunity to take the necessary powers. We expect the annual cost to be about £16 million per annum.
Therefore, new clause 74 is drafted in a way which gives central Government a degree of flexibility. There may be arguments in favour of meeting the full costs or the Government may consider it more appropriate to make a contribution. A tariff may be needed to reflect different costs in different parts of the country. As I have said, we will discuss the use of the powers in detail with the local authority associations.
As hon. Members know, the Government have embarked upon a substantial expansion of the secure accommodation estate in order not only to provide sufficient places for 15 and 16-year-old boys on remand who are currently sent to prison but to accommodate 12 to 14-year-olds who will be subject to secure remands. In all, we currently intend to create an additional 170 places. The Department of Health will shortly publish a plan explaining how the places will be supplied.
I expect the new clause to be welcomed both by potential purchasers and by potential providers of additional places, as it creates a framework in which revenue costs can be provided centrally. It also creates a framework in which the mechanism for providing payments can be amended in the light of experience gained in the operation of the system—hence the need for maximum flexibility.
4.30 pm
I will try to anticipate what Opposition Members will say and comment briefly on their amendments to the new clause. Those amendments seek to restrict the degree of flexibility available to the Government in defraying the costs incurred by local authorities in complying with court-ordered remands of 12 to 16-year-olds to local authority accommodation with a security requirement. Amendment (a) would remove the Secretary of State's discretion to defray those costs, and replace it with a duty to do so. Amendment (b) would require the Secretary of State to defray all reasonable costs, instead of

costs to such extent as he considers appropriate".
Amendment (c) would remove the provision for the costs to be defrayed on the basis—determined by the Secretary of State from time to time—of either a fixed proportion of the costs or a tariff.
I recognise the concern that lies behind the amendments—concern that local authorities should not be put under undue financial strain in complying with court-ordered secure remands of 12 to 16-year-olds to local authority accommodation with a security requirement. The Government are sympathetic to the need, in the case of such remands, for direct central revenue support by fee payment to individual authorities: that is why we tabled new clause 74.
The Government will discuss in detail with local authority associations the use of the powers provided in new clause 74 before they come into operation. There may be arguments in favour of meeting the full costs, or the Government may consider it more appropriate to make a contribution. As I have said, a tariff may be needed to reflect different costs in different parts of the country. What is certain is that there can be no advantage in seeking to restrict the scope of our discussions with local authorities in the way sought by the Opposition amendments, and I urge the House not to support them.
Amendment No. 52 is a technical measure to extend the scope of the expenses that could be provided for under the Bill to include those required by the Secretary of State to make payments under contracts entered into for the purpose of placing youngsters subject to secure training orders in accommodation other than secure training centres—that will be in section 2—or of the supervision by a designated person of youngsters under secure training orders after their release.
Amendment No. 53 inserts a new subsection (5A), which makes express provision for the reimbursement by the Secretary of State of the expenses of the probation committee—or, as the case may be, the local authority—in meeting its obligation to supervise an offender in accordance with clause 3 and any rules made under that clause. Amendment No. 54 adds a new subsection providing for payments to be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament. Amendment No. 57 makes an alteration to schedule 10, which amends the Probation Service Act 1993, to exclude the expenses of the probation committee incurred under clause 3 from the definition of qualifying expenses in section 17(2) of that Act. That prevents the Home Office from, in effect, paying for the supervision of offenders twice. I hope that the House will welcome the amendments as sensible measures to allow the probation service and local authorities to be paid directly by the Secretary of State.
New clause 79 is important. It would permit local authorities to contract out the management of secure accommodation in local authority and local authority controlled community homes. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health will respond to any substantive points that hon. Members may raise about the new clause.

Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to provide a commitment to proper financing of the Government's policies. That makes him almost unique among Ministers. I hope that he will develop the principle


that he has enunciated when we debate crime prevention, drugs policy and many of the other important issues that the Opposition will wish to raise.
I should like to express some concern on my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on these issues, in the context of health and social services. While welcoming some elements of the provisions that the Minister has introduced, we are concerned about the lateness of their introduction. It would have been beneficial if the discussions to which the Minister referred had taken place well in advance. That would have enabled the nature of the provisions to be worked out better.
The Minister is anxious to gain flexibility for central Government. That sounds to me like an attempt to secure the ability to stay within cost limits. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be detailed discussion of the means of reimbursement. What we want, and what our amendments seek to achieve, is that the Minister should honour his commitment to the provision of proper financing of Government policies and that he should be constrained to do so fairly.
The Minister says that the Government have embarked on an expansion of secure accommodation, but there has been no proper consultation about what is needed or of what would be effective and the Government have taken a long time to get around to this action. The cost of secure accommodation is certainly a problem for local authorities—it may be more than £1,700 a week and even sometimes over £2,000—but availability is also a problem, as illustrated by the scandalous case reported in the press and other media over the weekend. This is a day-to-day problem for those dealing with the most difficult youngsters.
I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs which dealt with the criminal justice legislation of 1991. In February that year the Committee was promised by the then Minister that secure places would be made available for the purpose of ending the scandal of youngsters aged 16 and 17 being held in adult accommodation. That promise has not yet been fulfilled, lack of cash being the main problem. My own local authority experienced a lack of capital from the Welsh Office for this purpose.
The Select Committee, in its report of last July on juvenile offenders, said:
While capital costs and part of the cost of commissioning of the building are met by central Government, revenue funding is met by local authorities, with authorities which do not have secure accommodation having to buy places from those who do … this puts a particularly heavy burden on local authorities in the start-up phase of a new unit, while the high cost of accommodation makes authorities very wary of planning secure accommodation unless they can ensure it will be filled.
At the conclusion of its comments the Committee said:
We do not believe that it is appropriate for local authorities to bear the security costs of accommodating youngsters committed by the courts. We recommend that the costs of holding juveniles committed by the courts to local authority accommodation should be met from central funds.
The Committee did not say that those costs should be partly met from central funds. While I welcome the action that the Minister has taken, I have to say that it is only a partial step. The new clause is a step in the right direction, but we need a commitment that the Minister will seriously consider the possibility of meeting all costs.
Government new clause 79 appears to be designed to extend privatisation of parts of homes and contractorisation of whole and of parts of places in which young people are held. We argued in Committee that clause 19 is wrong in principle and that it is not appropriate for the private sector to run secure accommodation for this most difficult group of children, who require the highest degree of expertise.
In view of the very important debates ahead of us, we do not wish to prolong this one. I therefore ask the Minister to provide in detail the information that is available. Perhaps we might be given something like notes on clauses of the kind that would have been supplied had these provisions been included at an earlier stage. Hon. Members need to be fully informed about what the Government are seeking to do. Members of another place should also be informed of the full import of the Government's intentions so that they may debate the matter properly.
It would be nice if the Government would indicate acceptance of our amendments, as they would help to meet the high principles expressed in the first sentence of the Minister's introductory speech. I do not suppose that that will happen, but I hope that the Government will proceed further down this path.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish to declare an interest because, as the House knows, I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
New clause 74 is important because it deals with the provision of secure accommodation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the discussions which have taken place over the past two years or so on the need to provide additional secure accommodation, and I confirm what he said. About two years ago, I led a deputation from the Police Federation to see the then Minister of State for Health on this very matter. The then Minister, now the Secretary of State for Health, was sympathetic to what we had to say but it was clear to me that she was considering the need to provide secure places mainly as an alternative to sending juveniles to prison. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out, we have not made the progress that we should have liked to make in providing the places that are so desperately needed.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, for what he said today about the Government's commitment to funding part of the substantial cost of providing secure accommodation. It is not right to leave it all to local authorities, and it is absolutely right that the Government should bear a share of what must be a fairly substantial expenditure item.
Additional secure accommodation is desperately needed. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that it is provided to deal with juveniles, but I believe that the only way we shall get it is if local authorities across the country know that they can provide it in partnership with the Government. These are hard times for local authorities, for all the reasons with which we are familiar. I should like local authorities and the Government to work in partnership to fund and provide the accommodation as quickly as possible. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and, knowing my hon. Friend the Minister as I do, I am sure that he will use his considerable energy to ensure that the programme is driven through. I therefore support the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I shall certainly take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). Financing is something that the Government will be discussing with local authorities to ascertain how the best progress can be made.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked a number of specific questions about new clause 79. As the House and he will be aware, the Bill already incorporates powers of de-monopolisation of the provision of secure residential children's homes. Those powers were introduced after full consultation with local government and the voluntary and private sectors. The new clause is simply a logical extension of that provision and will enable local authorities, if they so wish, to consider contracting out the management of secure accommodation in local authority community homes and with the consent of the board of managers of local authority controlled community homes. They would, if they so wish—I stress the discretionary nature of the new clause—be able to bring to bear the philosophy and experience of the voluntary sector, or the particular skills of the private sector, on the management of these homes; the range of options would thus be extended in the search by local authorities for the most efficient and effective ways of providing the services.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, said, we are currently discussing with local authorities the need to provide an additional 170 places nation wide to enable the Government to meet their commitment under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to abolish penal remand for 15 and 16-year-old boys and to meet additional accommodation requirements arising from the provisions of this Bill. The discussions are going well, and we welcome the local authorities' co-operation and willingness to help to meet the Government's target. I stress that there is nothing in the new clause to frustrate the efforts of local authorities to provide additional accommodation. The choice of whether existing and new accommodation should be managed directly by local authorities or other contractors will of course be a matter entirely for the local authorities.

Ms Ann Coffey: I am interested to hear what the Minister said about negotiations with local authorities going well, but may I press him on what he means? In Stockport, my local authority last year had to pay a considerable amount of money for secure accommodation for which no provision was made in the standard spending assessment. I should not have thought that local authorities would believe that things were going well unless they had received a substantive commitment from the Government about the funding of secure training orders.

Mr. Bowis: What I said is what I meant. We have a commitment to create an additional 170 places nation wide; we are in discussion with local authorities in various parts of the country and our discussions are going well. I am not able to announce today the conclusion of those discussions, but I expect the hon. Lady to be pleased with us when we are able to do so.

Mr. Michael: The Minister has responded positively to some of the points that I made, but will he give an undertaking to put in writing the information that I requested? In view of the three-year delay since the promise was made to provide secure places, will he give an undertaking to set a time scale for concluding discussions with local authorities?

Mr. Bowis: We are not in the business of holding guns to heads but I can genuinely tell the hon. Gentleman that he should just wait and see. Good progress is being made with local authorities and I think that he will be pleased when we are able to make our announcement. In response to his request for notes on clauses or briefing, I am happy to give a commitment that they will be made available.
I can also give two further assurances. First, there is nothing in our proposals to weaken the existing safeguards covering the inspection and approval of secure accommodation. Secondly, local authorities will continue to be responsible for decisions about the placement of children in their care and they will have to have proper regard for the rights and welfare of those young people.
I also make it clear that it is the Government's policy intention at some future date to enable local authorities—again, if they so wish—to contract out the management of non-secure accommodation in local authority community homes.
The new clause is a useful option for local authorities and brings with it all the safeguards that the hon. Gentleman and I seek. Homes will continue to be subject to the the regulations relating to children's homes, with all that that implies for adequate staffing levels, the provision of suitable accommodation for each child, adequate facilities, food and clothing and record keeping. The secure accommodation regulations on procedural safeguards will also apply. Social services inspections will apply, as will the Secretary of State's power to order the closure of a home that had unsuitable premises or where the conduct was in breach of the children's homes regulations. The safeguards will continue as of now. It is a discretion—and only a discretion—that we offer as a half-way house to de-monopolisation under clause 19. I am confident that the House will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 75

POWER TO APPLY SECTIONS 29 TO 33 TO ARMED FORCES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order direct that any provision of sections 29 to 33 of this Act shall apply, subject to such modifications as he may specify, to any proceedings to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies—

(a) to proceedings whereby a charge is dealt with summarily under Part II of the Army Act 1955;
(b) to proceedings whereby a charge is dealt with summarily under Part II of the Air Force Act 1955;
(c) to proceedings whereby a charge is summarily tried under Part II of he Naval Discipline Act 1957;
(d) to proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Army Act 1955;
(e) to proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Air Force Act 1955;
(f) to proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Naval Discipline Act 1957;
(g) to proceedings before a disciplinary court constituted under section 50 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;


(h) to proceedings before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court;
(i) to proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court; and it applies wherever the proceedings take place.

(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Ministry of Defence wishes the new rules in criminal proceedings concerning inferences to be drawn from silence in clauses 29 to 33 to apply as closely as possible to disciplinary proceedings under the service discipline Acts in order to avoid a disparity between civilian and service law. The new clause gives the Secretary of State power to apply those rules to service disciplinary proceedings and to specify whatever modifications he deems appropriate. Such modifications will be required because of the ways in which service disciplinary proceedings differ from those in the civilian courts. Those investigating offences and hearing proceedings under the service discipline Acts follow different procedures from their civilian counterparts and the application of the provisions will need to reflect that.
The disciplinary proceedings to which the clauses may be applied are summary proceedings and courts martial, constituted in accordance with the service discipline Acts: the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Those proceedings may take place anywhere in the world where the armed forces are situated and the rules will apply wherever they take place.
I commend the clause to the House as providing a means to ensure that service personnel are treated on a similar basis to civilians in regard to the effects of clauses 29 to 33, whether they are dealt with under service law or under the civilian criminal law.

Mr. Michael: Clearly, it would be wrong for there to be major disparities between the criminal law and the law applying to the armed forces. Having said that, it is also clear that there are major and grave deficiencies in clauses 29 to 33, which we shall highlight when we debate the clauses. It seems that it is not helpful or appropriate to pre-empt that debate. We shall seek to amend clauses 29 to 33 in due course and to delete parts of those provisions. If we are successful in those endeavours, our improvement of the Bill will also apply to new clause 75. That makes our position clear.
Having made clear our distaste for much of what is in clauses 29 to 33, I do not intend to detain the House to debate those points this afternoon.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am surprised that the Minister should have brought forward such a measure at this stage in the proceedings without any prior discussion. I am unhappy about a measure which is highly controversial in civil proceedings and which runs against the recommendations of the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Runciman, being imported on the say-so of the Ministry of Defence into courts martials, which operate under different rules. The rules about the inferences to be drawn from silence are controversial enough in the civilian courts and, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said, we shall come to that issue in due course.
It should not be thought that the new proposal is necessarily appropriate—even if clauses 29 to 33 go

through—in the different circumstances of disciplinary proceedings before a court martial. So far as I am aware, questions of convincing juries do not arise in such circumstances and, if there is any case for modifying the right to silence, it is because of the effect that it may have on the attitude of juries. I do not accept that that has sufficient weight to change the long-standing law of the country and, for courts martial, no such comparable consideration would seem to arise.

Dr. Godman: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, but I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Following the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the proposal is at best controversial and at a worst dodgy. The new clause seeks to bring clauses 29 to 33 into Scottish law by way of a military back door. It would appear that much of United Kingdom military law slavishly follows English criminal law and criminal procedures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that there is some agreement.
Military law in the United Kingdom need not inevitably be completely compliant with one jurisdictional system, since there are marked differences between military law, Scottish criminal law and English criminal law. May I quote from Professor D. M. Walker's book, with which the Minister should be familiar, as he has some sort of degree in Scots law. In the book "The Scottish Legal System", published in 1992, Professor Walker said:
While it is no doubt desirable to have a common code of service law for all personnel, it is unfortunate that the code adopted is based entirely on English criminal law, which may cause difficulties for Scottish counsel or solicitors defending and may give rise to problems of great difficulty on appeal, since Scottish judges do not profess to know English criminal law.
I suspect that officials and the Minister have not thought about the case of an appeal made by a Scottish soldier who is convicted by a court martial sitting in Edinburgh castle. Due to the divergences between the two systems, such a soldier would have a powerful case to argue against the inadequacy and, I would say, the rottenness of that law.
Scottish soldiers serving, for example, with a Scottish regiment in Scotland would be subjected to an entirely different regime than is the case for their pals in civvy street. Since the Minister said in Committee that the Government have no intention of taking away from the Scottish legal system the right to silence, what we have is bad law. It is bad law to treat military law as the merest appendage of English criminal law. It is utterly illogical in relation to Scottish personnel who are serving in Scotland and those, for example, serving with a Scottish regiment overseas. If the proposal were to go through, what would happen to a Scottish service man or woman who seeks to appeal against the decision of a court martial, given that a court martial is entirely different from a jury trial at the sheriff court or in the High Court? I remind the Minister that Professor Walker said:
The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act of 1951 (now the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968) constituted a Courts-Martial Appeal Court consisting in Scotland of such Lords Commissioners of Justiciary as the Lord Justice-General may nominate, being uneven in number and not less than three.
Incidentally, Professor Walker is the emeritus professor of law at Glasgow university. He goes on to say:
A person convicted by court-martial in any of the services may, with the leave of the Appeal Court, and subject to certain conditions, appeal against his conviction.


Does that mean that, if the measure goes through, the Scottish soldier of whom I spoke would have to appeal to the English Court of Appeal? It is as absurd as that.

Mr. Maclennan: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is making a number of good points, but does he find it as objectionable as I do that no Scottish Minister is present to listen to the arguments? In Committee, there were no Scottish Ministers present, despite the fact that major parts of the Scottish criminal law were being amended. Is not that worse than discourtesy? Is not it an abuse?

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. With him, as the other Scots Member of the Committee, I have complained loud and long over the Government's failure to put a Scottish Office Minister on the Front Bench. There was a Scottish Office Minister present—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—who moved new clause 73 and disappeared in a cloud of dust. It is a disgrace, as I have said all along. Those measures should not be introduced in Scotland by means of this useless, clumsy piece of legislation.
It is important to consider the right of a soldier, a sailor or an airman to appeal when he or she has been convicted of a military offence at a court martial set up, for example, in Edinburgh or Inverness. Professor Walker says:
The practice at the High Court of Justiciary sitting as Court of Criminal Appeal is followed"—
in such a case—
and the powers of the court are similar. The court will allow an appeal if it thinks that the finding of the court-martial under all the circumstances of the case is unsafe or unsatisfactory, or involves a wrong decision on a point of law, or that there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial, but the court may dismiss an appeal on a technical point if it considers that in the circumstances no miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Will that Scottish soldier have to appeal to an English Court of Appeal, given that the military law under which he is being tried at the court martial in Edinburgh is based on English law, or will such an appeal, as is the case now, be heard by members of the High Court of Justiciary? By that one example, we can show the illogicality of the proposal and its irredeemable unfairness to service personnel serving in Scotland, where we have an entirely different legal system.
Will the matter be pushed to one side, like everything else, by the odd-job lot in government? I fear that that may be the case. I should like to hear an answer from the Minister about a convicted service man's appeal rights under the new clause.

5 pm

Mr. David Trimble: I apologise for intervening in this part of the debate as I did not hear the opening speeches. I do so to react to what I did hear, especially the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He said that clauses 29 to 33 were being introduced primarily with regard to jury trials. I disagree because the truth is quite the reverse. As everyone knows, juries have always taken silence into account. We need clauses 29 to 33 precisely to ensure that non-jury courts take silence into account. That is part of the reason why similar provisions were introduced in Northern Ireland almost six years ago. We knew that the judges in

single-judge courts were not taking into account matters that common sense said that they should. The clauses are especially useful in this context.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to clauses 29 to 33 as affecting or abolishing the right to silence. They do not. If hon. Members want to see a new clause that would affect the right to silence, they should look at my new clause 63. New clause 76 does not affect the right to silence. It concerns merely the question of inference from silence, which does not abridge the right to silence.

Mr. Maclean: In answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), we robustly reject any suggestion that clauses 29 to 33 are improper, inadequate or badly drafted. As we said in Committee, they have received widespread support and we look forward to a robust debate on them.
It is clear that service law needs to mirror and closely to follow the changes that we have made in civilian law. I do not know when military law was invented. There is no point in raking over the historical coals that decided that the manual of military law would be based initially on principles of English law rather than Scots law. That is clearly a fait accompli. It is, therefore, incumbent on us to ensure that the manual of military law keeps pace with the civilian law on which that manual was based. All hon. Members will agree that the military must operate by the same code of practice and by the same manual of military law throughout the United Kingdom. Unique and distinctive as is the contribution of the Scots to the British armed forces, it would be absolutely impossible and impractical to try now to operate a separate code of military law based on Scottish principles of law.

Dr. Godman: I seek an assurance from the Minister that, in the example I gave, someone convicted by a court martial in Scotland would have the right, as is the case now, to appeal to an Appeal Court in Edinburgh.

Mr. Maclean: I can absolutely give that assurance. The point is that the Appeal Court in Edinburgh will implement whatever law it is deciding on at the time. The Appeal Court in Edinburgh may implement much mercantile law; much world mercantile law is based on principles of English law. The Appeal Court may implement European Community laws, and is perfectly able to do that. At the moment, the Appeal Court is making an appeal decision based on the manual of military law, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says is based on English principles. As an Englishman, he does not like that. As a Scot, I am happy to accept that state of affairs.
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh is perfectly capable of coming to judgments based on the manual of military law, whoever invented it and whichever principles it contains. The fact that the manual may be amended and adapted to take in the principles enshrined in clauses 29 to 33 does not invalidate the case for the Appeal Court in Edinburgh to hear any appeals from any soldiers tried in courts martial in Scotland. Of course the Appeal Court in Edinburgh can do so just as excellently as it does now.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was absolutely right in his brief contribution because he mentioned the Diplock courts. That has pulled the rug from under the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is possible


to proceed with new clause 75 now, as my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence wish, because it will merely implement the sensible changes in the manual of military law which are included in clauses 29 to 33. No discourtesy was intended. The House would take it amiss if I told it that the Ministry of Defence had noticed that the change would be necessary for military law, but that we intended to do nothing about it. Of course it was right to so something about it. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 76

POLICE DETENTION AFTER CHARGE

'.—ion 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (which requires an arrested person charged with an offence to be released except in specified circumstances) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(ii) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested will fail to appear in court to answer to bail;
(iii) in the case of a person arrested for an imprisonable offence, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from committing an offence;
(iv) in the case of a person arrested for an offence which is not an imprisonable offence, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from causing physical injury to any other person or from causing loss of or damage to property;
(v) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from interfering with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence; or
(vi) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary for his own protection;".

(3) After subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection2014;
(2A) The custody officer, in taking the decisions required by subsection (1)(a) and (b) above (except (a)(i) and (vi) and (b)(ii)), shall have regard to the same considerations as those which a court is required to have regard to in taking the corresponding decisions under paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976.

(4) After subsection (7), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(7A) In this section "imprisonable offence", has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976.".'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 29, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
'() infanticide
() attempted infanticide'.
Government amendments Nos. 105 to 107.

Mr. Maclean: The Government gave an undertaking in Committee to consider amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enable a custody officer to detain a person after charge to prevent him from committing an

offence. New clause 76 is a result of that consideration. We believe that it achieves what the police service seeks, which is to have set out in legislation in the clearest terms the powers of a police custody officer to detain when he believes such detention is necessary to prevent offending.
The new clause does more. It would be irresponsible not to think about the considerations that it might be appropriate to add to ensure the proper use of the new power. In Committee, the Opposition tabled an amendment in which they sought to give the police the power to detain a person charged with any offence to prevent offending. In our view, that power would be far too wide ranging as it would apply to people charged with a minor offence. We believe that it is sensible to make the same sort of distinctions as are made in the Bail Act 1976 and to require a custody officer to have regard to wider considerations when he decides whether to detain or to release a person.
At present, the police can detain an individual after charge to prevent him from causing physical injury, or loss of or damage to property. There are offences, such as those involving drug dealing, which do not sit easily within that definition but which can cause considerable harm. The police need to be certain that they have the power to detain people who are likely to commit such offences; at the moment they are uncertain.
We propose to give the police the power to detain an individual to prevent any type of offending. However, the new power will apply only when a person has been charged with an imprisonable offence. The Bail Act, which governs court bail, also makes a careful distinction between individuals charged with imprisonable offences and individuals charged with non-imprisonable offences. The Government want the police to be certain of the basis on which they make decisions to detain or to release. To that end, we propose that they be required to have regard to a number of relevant considerations, as the courts are required to do under the Bail Act. Those considerations are the nature and seriousness of the offence, the person's character, antecedents and community ties, the person's record under previous grants of bail and the strength of the evidence against him.
I do not propose to alter the grounds for detention where a person has been charged with a non-imprisonable offence. It is essential that police keep their power to detain a person to prevent physical injury, loss or damage to deal with those who represent a threat to persons or property. In taking that and other decisions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the custody officer will also be required to have regard to the wider considerations that I have mentioned. I hope that the House will accept the new clause, which confirms the Government's determination to tackle reoffending, while recognising that there might be circumstances in which detention is not appropriate or justified.
On amendments Nos. 105 and 106, the Government believe that bail hostels offer the courts an important option when taking the decision to remand. If the courts are unwilling to release a person unconditionally back into the community, the requirement to reside at a bail hostel and observe its rules may be enough to ensure that the defendant keeps to his bail and out of trouble. But bail to a bail hostel is very much a last alternative to custody and ranks close behind a remand to prison in terms of level of restriction. In coming to such a decision, the court will draw on advice and its understanding of bail hostel provision. The views of the probation service, the


prosecution and the defence will be sought. The magistrates will probably have visited a bail hostel and will be aware of the regime operated there. The nature of that decision-making process and the fact that bail hostels are one step down from a remand prison has caused the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate to allow the police the power to impose the condition as part of police bail.
The workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act require custody officers to make a bail decision very early on, hours after an arrest, with little information and without the benefit of the advice that is available to the courts. The Government are taking steps to improve the information available to custody officers—for example, information about previous behaviour on bail. But there is a world of difference between the deliberations of the courtroom and the decision made in a custody suite of an inner-city police station at 1 o'clock in the morning. As I said, remand to a bail hostel is a fairly serious step. It is not in the same category of restriction as having to keep away from prosecution witness "x" or address "y".
As the House will know, the Government have moved quickly to implement the recommendation of the royal commission that the police be allowed to attach conditions to bail once a person has been charged. We believe that the police will impose sensible conditions to ensure that individuals do not abscond, commit an offence on bail, interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. We do not think that the power to impose, as a condition of bail, residency at a bail hostel is an appropriate one for the police. That does not mean that remand to a bail hostel is ruled out entirely when the custody officer believes it to be an appropriate condition. The officer can detain the person overnight if he has reasonable grounds under PACE and pass on his view on the suitability of a bail hostel condition to the prosecution to put before the court. In such cases, I have little doubt that courts will incline towards such a condition, but it remains a decision that the court alone should take, not the police.
I shall say a word or two about amendment No. 107, in response to a discussion in Committee on clause 26, which relates to amendment No. 107. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) asked for the removal of the phrase
in the hands of the prosecutor
which in his view was ambiguous and unnecessary. We undertook to reflect further on that. Having considered the wording again, we are prepared to make the amendments sought in Committee by my hon. Friend. It is clear from subsection (1) that it is the prosecutor who makes an application. It is implicit in that the prosecutor will decide whether an application is justified and, if so, what information he requires to support the application. I know that my hon. Friend will regard that as one less constitutional outrage that he has encountered in the Bill. I hope that he is content with the amendment, which removes the ambiguity that gave him concern. I commend the amendments and the Government new clause to the House.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the Minister was disappointed that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was not here to applaud his final comments, but at least I am able to welcome the Minister's response to the arguments advanced by the Opposition in Committee.
I do not wish to delay the House, but the Minister has made it clear that there have been detailed considerations.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he did very generously in Committee. Does he agree that a number of Conservative Members adavanced the same arguments in Committee, including myself?

Mr. Michael: I noticed the hon. Gentleman's presence in Committee from time to time, and indeed members on both sides of the Committee commented on the issue. However, I speak for the Opposition, not for the hon. Gentleman.
I shall not delay the House on a point of detail, but the Minister acknowledged the fact that there had been detailed consideration and that there are complexities in the proposals that he has advanced following consideration of the points that we made. Therefore, will the Minister agree to provide information on the way in which the new clause will affect the position—in effect, the note on the new clause that would have been available had the proposal been included in the Bill before it went into Committee? Will he at least do so for Committee members who have taken an interest in the issue?
I gained some knowledge of bail hostels during my period as a member of a probation committee. I understand the sensitivity with which the Minister approaches the matter. I recognise that there are difficulties, but there may be circumstances, for instance when a person has been resident in a bail hostel, when consultation with the probation service is immediately available. I recognise, however, that the Minister's suggestion that the matter should be decided by a court has merit. After today's deliberations, could he provide information on the reasoning that led him to introduce the new clause? That would assist us in considering the matter further. It is a delicate matter, but it would be a good thing if conditions could be imposed to allow for those rare circumstances in which someone should not be held in custody. I do not seek, however, to divide the House on that matter or to delay the Minister further in the debate.

Mr. Shersby: I warmly welcome the new clause. It is very important that a custody officer has at his disposal the clearest possible guidance on the grounds on which a person can be detained. The new clause will be extremely valuable in making that possible.
Most hon. Members know that the job of the custody officer is one of the most difficult and responsible jobs carried out by a member of the police service. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, decisions often have to be made in the middle of the night and those decisions have to be the right ones. It is essential that the custody officer is absolutely clear about the decisions that he makes and is fully informed about how the law is intended to operate. The new clause is a great improvement and I welcome it without reservation.
The new clause is a major step forward. I hope that it will bring to an end the reoffending on bail which has been


the cause of such great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on ensuring that the matter has been dealt with in the new clause.

Mr. John Greenway: I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has said. The measure is long overdue. There is nothing more disheartening for our policemen and policewomen than to arrest criminals, only to see them released on bail hours later and then to discover that they have interfered with witnesses or committed further offences. The new clause provides a much better balance than has existed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When the matter is considered in another place, I hope that the warm support for the new clause will be noted.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friends for their warm welcome for the new clause. Of course, I am willing to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) with some of the details that he requested.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 79

MANAGEMENT OF SECURE ACCOMMODATION

'.—(1) The Children Act 1989 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 53 (provision and management of community homes)—

(a) in subsection (3) (homes which may be community homes)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the words "managed, equipped and maintained" there shall be substituted the words "equipped, maintained and (subject to subsection (3A)) managed"; and
in paragraph (b)(i), for the words "management, equipment and maintenance" there shall be substituted the words "equipment, maintenance and (subject to subsection (3B)) management"; and
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(3A) A local authority may make arrangements for the management by another person of accommodation provided by the local authority for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.
(3B) Where a local authority are to be responsible for the management of a community home provided by a voluntary organisation, the local authority may, with the consent of the body of managers constituted by the instrument of management for the home, make arrangements for the management by another person of accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.".

(3) In Part H of Schedule 4 (management of controlled and assisted community homes)—
(a) in paragraph 3(4), after the word "managers" there shall be inserted the words ", except in so far as, under section 53(3B), any of the accommodation is to be managed by another person."; and
(b) in paragraph 3(5), after the word "body" there shall be inserted the words "; and similarly, to the extent that a contract so provides, as respects anything done, liability incurred or property acquired by a person by whom, under section 53(3B), any of the accommodation is to be managed".'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

'Her Majesty's Government shall not bring into effect a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme unless and until the

relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall have been repealed and a new scheme introduced not by executive order pursuant to the Royal Prerogative but by Act of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Blair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (a) to the new clause, after 'Compensation Scheme', insert
'in any part of the United Kingdom and based upon any system of fixed levels of award for particular types of injury.'.

New clause 48—Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—
'. In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for subsection (2) there is substituted the following subsection— "Sections 108 to 117 of and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) shall come into force six months after that Act is passed.".'

New clause 49—Factors to be considered in determining compensation—
'. Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows:—

(a) in paragraph 4(3), after "cases", there shall be inserted the words

"but may not determine particular amounts for particular cases"; and
(b) the following new paragraph is inserted after paragraph 10—

"10(A) In determining the amount of compensation available under this Part of this Act, the Board may take into account any factors which appear to it to be appropriate.".'.

Mr. Blair: The new clause deals with the new criminal injuries compensation scheme. Nothing so completely exposes the hollowness of the Government's claims on law and order than scrapping the existing system of compensation for criminal injuries.
We have one of the finest systems in the world for the individual compensation of victims. It is a model that other countries have agreed to and followed. That system is to be replaced by a wholly different one, based on a crude tariff drawn up by the Government, which will ignore the circumstances of victims when compensating them for their injury.
The new scheme was introduced after a sham consultation, and was denounced by Victim Support, the police and organisations representing the criminally injured. The chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—a distinguished former Cabinet Minister—described it as "fundamentally flawed" and "manifestly unfair", and two former Law Lords said that it was illegal. It was also introduced with a deplorable lack of candour about its true motivation. Even for this Government and their legislation, that is quite a record.
Of the people whose views were sought, I know no one who supported the new scheme, and it is the subject of a case for judicial review in the courts, which is to be heard in May.
The present scheme was introduced in 1964, and compensates victims of violent crime on roughly the same basis as the civil law—compensation is based on the loss to the individual, which is the very nature of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The present scheme therefore takes into account any future loss of earnings, as well as loss of amenity. In the case of a fatal injury,


compensation is assessed on the same basis as that provided by the Fatal Accidents Act 1976—with some measure for the dead person's loss of income.
When the present scheme was introduced, payments were made on an ex gratia, non-statutory basis, but from a very early stage in its development it was anticipated that it would be given a proper statutory basis. That anticipation became firmer following a royal commission report in 1979; and in 1988, during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, the intention to make the scheme statutory so that payments were no longer ex gratia but of right was reaffirmed.
Section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 thus placed a specific duty on the Home Secretary to introduce the scheme in a statutory form. Discretion was allowed as to when the scheme should come into effect on a statutory basis, but not whether it should do so. For various reasons, that duty was not carried out, and the Government used that fact to try to introduce the new scheme, using prerogative powers rather than by seeking the proper consent of Parliament.
It is true that, under the new tariff system, awards will often be roughly the same as under the present scheme. However, thousands of people every year—a significant number—will lose, and, according to parliamentary answers given by Ministers, about 25 per cent. will lose substantially. The victims of violent crime who lose will often be those with the worst injuries. The new scheme, therefore, hits hardest those people who are most in need.
There are four principal objections to the new scheme. First, it fails to take proper account of any loss of future earnings, although that is often the major element of any award. For example, 18-year-olds may suffer criminal injuries identical to those of 80-year-olds, but because the former would go out to work and would hopefully have a lifetime of earnings in front of them, their circumstances are plainly entirely different from those of elderly people. Yet they will receive the same awards, irrespective of their circumstances.
Recently, a nurse was badly injured and received about £126,000 as compensation, of which £17,000 only was for loss of amenity. If her case came up under the new scheme, she would receive only £5,000. The police officer who was criminally injured while carrying out his duties and received £120,000 would, in similar circumstances under the new scheme, receive only £7,500.
Although civil law will still compensate for negligence on the basis of loss, where criminal injuries occur, the connection between injury and loss—based on the future earnings capacity of the injured person—will be broken as a result of the Government's changes.
The same will apply to fatal awards. Dependency awards will go. For example—to take another recent case—in the Slater case in June last year, a woman who witnessed her husband's fatal stabbing, which took place in front of her children, received £170,000. Under the new system, she would receive only £17,000.
The examples that I have given are of real cases of loss suffered by some of the most needy people and by the victims of the most serious and violent crimes. The Government cannot expect us to take their protestations

about victims of crime seriously while they are undermining the basis of compensation for those victims—the money they desperately need to rebuild their lives.
Secondly, as the noble Lord Carlisle pointed out in another place, the new system will often be unworkable. For example, the psychological effects of rape or armed robbery on the criminally injured will vary enormously, yet they are effectively to be treated as the same in many cases. The scheme is not merely wrong in principle, but unworkable in practice.
Thirdly, some of the judgments under the tariff system are extraordinary. Details of the system were issued in a White Paper at the end of the parliamentary Session last year. One suspects that it was announced then for news management purposes rather than for any other reason. As far as I can see, the system outlined in that White Paper has changed very little.
I shall give the House some examples of the tariffs in the system that the Government intend to drive through. Sexual abuse of a child is apparently to be worth about £1,000, and loss of a front tooth about £1,500. Heaven only knows how any sensible person could reach such a conclusion. Rape or buggery will be worth £7,500, as will a fractured kneecap. A fatality might result in an award of about £10,000 to the dependants of the deceased, which will be the same as compensation for the loss of an ear.
The new tariff system is not merely unworkable and wrong in principle because it fails to take future earnings into account; in some circumstances, it will be entirely unfair and arbitrary.
Finally, the basis for the introduction of the new scheme has changed completely, and the House is entitled to feel some anger at the way in which that has been done. When the then Home Secretary announced the new criminal injuries compensation scheme on 23 November 1992, it was said to be necessary, not to cut costs but because it offered the
best prospect of providing quicker payments to claimants through a means that is fair, straightforward and understandable.
That deception, which is what it was, was carried on until the White Paper was issued in December last year, when the Government claimed that the purpose of the new scheme was to offer a "better service to victims". No mention was made of the fact that the purpose of the proposal was to cut the costs of the scheme; rather, the Government claimed that it would make the scheme more administratively efficient, fairer and more easily understandable. One would have thought that the primary purpose of introducing the new proposal was merely to provide a better type of service to victims.
5.30 pm
A few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) had an Adjournment debate on the issue, when the Minister dismissed as cynical those who said that the Government's proposal was about cost cutting. He said that those people did not understand the true basis of the Government's thinking. It was Ministry of Truth stuff, because it is now absolutely clear that the basis of the new scheme has nothing to do with providing a better service for victims.
The Home Secretary may frown, but that suggestion cannot seriously be maintained, since not a single organisation that supports victims has come out in favour of his new scheme. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to mention one. I may be wrong,


and I do not want to overstate the case, but I think that I am right to suggest that not a single organisation of any nature has come out in favour of the new scheme.
The way in which the scheme has been driven through is quite extraordinary. It has been done on the basis of providing a better system for victims, but the fact that victim organisations have contradicted that claim and that no one has stepped forward to support it simply exposes the entirely sham nature of the consultation exercise.
The original reason for the Government's proposal, which was first given in another place and will no doubt be repeated here tonight, is that costs are spiralling out of control. That reason has never been part of the consultation process. The Government have never attempted to spell out why those costs will spiral out of control. On what basis do they suggest that costs will rise from between £170 million and £200 million to £500 million? The reason for the Government's assertion has never been published in any consultation paper so that we can assess whether it is right or wrong. That figure was simply plucked out of the air to justify a decision taken once the original justification was blown apart.
Upon what putative crime figures is the suggested cost based? If it is the case that the cost of the scheme is set to double in the next few years, I assume that that is because the Government take a rather less than sanguine view of how crime and violence are set to develop. Whether the figure is genuine or not we simply do not know, but it is quite wrong for it to be dragged out of the Government under duress, without any proper consultation. They have made no attempt to consult people properly to reach the best and fairest solution.
This is a necessarily short debate, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends, and perhaps one or two Conservative Members would like to speak. The introduction of the new scheme exemplifies the sorry mixture of incompetence and arrogance that sometimes cover the conduct of the Government. If they were serious in their protestations of support for victims of crime, it is contradictory to introduce the scheme, without proper consultation, when it will damage the interests of many thousands of victims a year.
The Government should withdraw their proposal until they have a proper scheme, subject to proper consultation, which protects the interests of the victim in a way that the British people wish to see.

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary, by proposing a tariff-based scheme of compensation for victims, departs from the clear statutory duty that was placed upon him by Parliament in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In doing so, he follows the lead of his predecessor, his right hon. and learned Friend who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would have been wise mostly to ignore that lead in matters concerning his right hon. and learned Friend's conduct of the criminal justice system, because his White Papers have led to extensive criticism by all those who must deal with the criminal justice system.
The manner in which the Government have brought forward the proposals for compensation for the victims of crime is an example of how not to proceed. In a debate in another place, the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, made it plain that neither he nor his colleagues on the board had been consulted about the principles that underlay the Government's proposals before they were announced.
That seems to me to be not merely a discourtesy, but a serious abuse, for no one better than that board could know of the practicality—or, as it believes, the impracticality—of the scheme that the Home Secretary has proposed. No one could know better than that board the practical consequences and injustices that will be wrought by a tariff scheme along the lines that the Home Secretary has proposed to introduce as at 1 April—originally without any parliamentary discussion.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks, perhaps he should take into account the reply given by Lord Elwyn-Jones to a parliamentary question about the Road Traffic Act 1974:
if the Act states that it shall come into force on a date to be fixed by order made by the Minister, and provides no more than that, it is within the discretion of the Minister as to when he brings the Act into force. Parliament may, of course, bring pressure to bear on him and require him to justify any inactivity. But, short of another Act, there is no way in which the Minister can be compelled by Parliament to bring that Act into operation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 1110.]
Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Maclennan: No doubt it is open to a Minister to decide at what date he may discharge an obligation imposed upon him by Act of Parliament, but this is a very different matter. This is not a proposal to discharge an obligation imposed upon the Home Secretary by Act of Parliament; it is an announced proposal to repeal the very Act that imposed that duty upon him. The case that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) had in mind is not in pari materia with what the Home Secretary is doing.
The proposal is the more remarkable because, in the past, the Conservative Government have felt it appropriate to praise the criminal injuries compensation scheme and to draw to people's attention its exemplary work. Previous Home Secretaries have repeatedly undertaken to put it on a statutory basis. If one goes back to when the Government took office, when the Pearson commission on civil liability reported, indications were given then that the scheme would be put on a statutory basis.
That was not done originally, when the scheme was introduced by a Conservative Government—that led by Sir Alec Douglas-Home—because the consequences of the scheme could not be known. It was thought that it would be sensible to try it out to see if it worked fairly and in a manner which should be rendered firm in statute. In 1983 and 1988, following the Pearson commission, progress reports were given by Home Secretaries. Candidly, the Minister, in proposing to proceed in the way he has, has acted high-handedly, and, I believe, possibly illegally. That matter will be tested at a later date.
The contents of what is proposed must also raise questions about whether the Government have violated the provisions of the European convention on the compensation of victims of violent crimes. Article 4 of that convention requires us to provide compensation which covers
according to the case under consideration"—
that is, according to the specific circumstances of the individual case—
at least … loss of earnings … and, as regards dependants, loss of maintenance.
If the Government intend to derogate from provisions of


international conventions to which they have subscribed, they would do well to inform the House of their intentions. That has been normal in other spheres.
The hardship it is proposed to seek to dismiss is undoubted. The Government gave no sign of their true purpose in making the proposal. As Lord Ackner, an experienced former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, said:
This is a cost-cutting exercise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 1994; Vol. 552, c. 1072.]
He also regarded it as "an abuse of power", as did a number of other learned Lords in the debate which, thankfully, was held in another place—thankfully, because they turned a spotlight on what the Government were planning to do. In a debate in which there were, I believe, 16 participants, I do not think that a single one who was not a member of the Government thought it right to support the Government.
The nature of the compensation at present available under the scheme is closely related to the circumstances of the individuals who are adversely affected by crimes of violence. Principles of the common law, and of the statute law in the case of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, are imported into the individual deliberations to ensure that the reality of the consequence of the sufferings by the victims of crime is reflected. It is there that the Government seem most disingenuous, for they have suggested in their White Paper that all that is necessary is for society to give some token of its concern about the consequence of violence on victims.
Hitherto, a genuine attempt has been made by the distinguished lawyers—40 of them—who sit as part-time servants of the public in determining those cases, to measure the reality of the suffering and the losses that it is to be anticipated will flow from it. The trouble with the new scheme is that the standard tariff leaves wholly out of account many of the matters that are most burdensome on the victims.
The people who suffer serious injury will be hardest hit—those who have to alter their homes and their way of life as a result of injury, those who have to confront the prospect of years of medical treatment, those who face loss of earnings, the dependants of those who have been murdered, or those who have suffered through manslaughter of their spouse. Their maintenance will not be taken into consideration. Those are serious changes that are proposed. Although it is possible, by averaging out to say that some people may prove better off, it is incontrovertibly true that those who suffer most will be the hardest hit.
New clause 1 and the related amendments give the Government an opportunity to reconsider their position. I hope that they will take it, for, if they do not, they will stand accused of paying no attention to the victims of violent crimes and controvert allegations that they have made that the victims are more in their mind than the criminals in the criminal justice system.
5.45 pm
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider, to listen to the wise advice of the people who have administered the scheme as it operates and, if it is thought necessary to modify the statutory scheme for Treasury reasons, to enter into genuine consultations before abandoning the operative scheme.
The Government appear to speak with two voices on the subject, for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced consultations. If he were to proceed on different lines from the Home Secretary, we could find ourselves in the strangely anomalous position in which the victims of violent crimes in Northern Ireland were treated according to a system that operated common law principles or statutory principles, but not the victims of comparable offences in Great Britain.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maclennan: Because there is already a scheme there, as I understand it, which is statutory and which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland apparently has it in mind to modify. Those are grave matters, and the present proposals of the Government will wreak great injustice.
May I recall to the Home Secretary the fate of the wife of one of the former members of the Conservative Government, Lady Tebbit, who was gravely injured for life, in circumstances that must come very close to his memory? That type of case is the type that will be adversely affected by what he has proposed. I do not think that it is defensible and I hope that he will not try to defend it.

Mrs. Gillan: I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on new clause 1.
The scheme that we operate in the United Kingdom not only was the first of its type in Europe, but has remained—

Mr. Trimble: I heard the hon. Lady refer to the scheme that we operate being the first in the United Kingdom, but the scheme that operates in Great Britain was not the first. Schemes operated in Ireland and Northern Ireland on a statutory basis for decades, if not centuries. I give the hon. Lady the opportunity to correct herself.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; this was one of the first schemes to operate in Europe and it certainly remains the most generous.
Even in the United States of America, in the most recent year for which figures were available the amount paid under compensation schemes was only marginally more than the total paid out in the United Kingdom. It is somewhat disingenuous for Opposition Members to say that we may be in contravention of European legislation because, as I understand it, Italy does not even have a compensation scheme. Indeed, during 1992 and 1993 the compensation scheme in the United Kingdom paid out more than those in all the other countries of the European Union put together.
The changes being made to move to a tariff-based scheme are necessary. There are inherent disadvantages in a scheme which operates under common law. Moreover, as everyone will agree, the number of claimants has, sadly, greatly increased. The projected figure for next year is some 70,000 claims.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: If I were working on a building site and dropped a sledgehammer on the hon. Lady's leg and broke it, she would get the necessary civil compensation. She would receive compensation if she could no longer dance and for any drop in earnings. But if I became so angry that I smashed the sledgehammer into your leg in a criminal way, you would not get all that compensation. Is there any justification in that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that he would get angry with me.

Mrs. Gillan: The thought of the hon. Member wielding a hammer on a building site leaves me speechless.
There have been great and unacceptable delays in awarding compensation to victims of crime. In December 1993 Roger Pannone, president of the Law Society, admitted that the average claim turnaround was 18 months. Most reasonable people would agree that that is far too long to wait for compensation.

Mr. Maclennan: Will i he hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I wish to make some progress now.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Mrs. Gillan: Very well.

Mr. Maclennan: She must know that the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has made it plain that 80 per cent. of cases are dealt with within nine months.

Mrs. Gillan: I made it clear that I was quoting the president of the Law Society.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Central Office brief.

Mrs. Gillan: For the hon. Gentleman's information, I have no Central Office brief in my hand.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) also underestimated the current position when he referred to approximately £500 million being available as it was made clear in a House of Lords reply that over the next three years £558 million will be available for the scheme.
People who claim against the scheme do not have to identify their attackers, consider their prospects for success or run the risk of having costs awarded, as they would under a civil scheme. That will continue. Moreover, 94 per cent. of all claims are for less than £10,000; 59 per cent. are for less than £3,000; and 48 per cent. are for less than £2,000. The new tariff-based scheme has been arrived at by taking the median figure, not the mean figure, which reflects more closely the value of pain and suffering as an element of the award.
Some of the objections voiced by people such as the president of the Law Society may reflect the fact that, under the new scheme, the costly skills of specialist lawyers will no longer be needed.
I welcome the tariff-based scheme. It will produce awards reasonably quickly and in an understandable and predictable manner, which will be much better for victims of crime.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sponsored by Unison, which means that I, personally, receive no moneys from Unison; they are paid to my constituency party.
Unison is extremely angry with this proposal because its members—mainly nurses—are often the subject of attacks at the workplace. Public sector workers such as Unison members risk suffering criminal assaults at work. The tariff scheme is therefore likely to lead to considerable injustice to Unison members in the amount of payment. No weight can be given to the effect that an incident will have on an individual victim. Individuals will receive "the average award" for their injuries, irrespective of the consequences that the injury has had on them.
One Unison member received compensation by presenting evidence of her physiological discomfort following a modest physical injury sustained while on duty in a locked psychiatric ward. The award was initially rejected on the basis that it was below the £1,000 threshold for compensation. On appeal, under the present scheme, however, evidence was heard that the individual had experienced enormous psychological suffering on her return to work in the same closed environment and on having to deal with her assailant. Under the new system, that evidence would be discounted and the member would not qualify for compensation.
I will give a little more detail about the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred. The exclusion of financial loss from the scheme will have a dramatic effect on the value of awards. For instance, compensation received by a Unison nursing sister who had to retire in her early thirties as a result of criminal injury was made up largely of financial loss. Of a total award of £126,943, £11,000 related to loss of wages up to the date of the hearing, £20,000 related to loss of pension rights and £63,162 related to future loss of earnings. Under the new arrangement, the nursing sister could recover no compensation for financial loss.
Unison members, especially nurses, will be placed at a grave disadvantage. I therefore place on record, on behalf of the union, its members' strong resentment of the fact that the policy was developed in a forum where the unions had almost no input and that they are now faced with the framing of poor legislation.

Mr. Shersby: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will know, I am not an enthusiast of the tariff-based scheme. I made my views on the matter extremely clear in an Adjournment debate on 18 March 1993, when I covered many of the points mentioned today. It so happens that, among my many interests, I am president of the Uxbridge victim support scheme and therefore take a special interest in victim compensation and the terrible injuries sustained by members of the public.
Some 90 per cent. of victims of crime are innocent. When the Government announced about 12 months ago that they intended to introduce this tariff-based scheme, they argued that it would provide the best prospect of quicker payment to claimants by clear, straightforward and understandable means. Following their announcement, I decided to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate because I believe that compensation by the state for criminal injustice is a vital part of our British way of life and that we should take care before moving away from the present satisfactory scheme. Although the proposed scheme may be quicker, it may provide claimants with what I can only describe, and what has been described to me, as rough justice.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 8.5 per cent. of all the money that the Government put into the criminal injuries compensation scheme goes on lawyers' fees and administrative costs? Would he not be in favour of a system which ensured that most, if not all, of the money went to the victims themselves?

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I suggest that there are good reasons why that 8.5 per cent. is deployed on lawyers' fees. Under the present scheme,


each case is carefully considered by a highly competent lawyer to determine the exact compensation that ought to be paid.
6 pm
It is worth considering why the criminal injuries compensation scheme was brought into existence by a Conservative Government in 1964. It was realised that most of the victims of crime could not bring civil proceedings for compensation against their assailants because those assailants would be without funds. The Government of the day recognised that there was an increasing number of crimes, and the scheme was a recognition of how society had failed the victim by allowing him or her to be assaulted. That being so, it was only right that Governments should ensure that victims received compensation, and they have done so ever since the scheme was introduced.
Compensation is treated by victims as an important part of their recovery, fulfilling their desire for some sort of justice. The payment of compensation, coupled with successful prosecution of the offender, is usually a large factor in a person's recovery.
One important feature of the tariff-based scheme is the fact that it prohibits the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from making awards for the loss of past or future earnings. I hope that I am wrong, but if not, that means that 90 per cent. of civilian applicants who suffer injuries so serious that they are unable to earn their livelihood will be obliged to rely on social security benefits, which would not usually make up the shortfall in their income. It would not be right for any new scheme to deprive the innocent victims of crime of the right to recover income lost due to violent crime. Indeed, that is one of the cardinal reasons why the current scheme has been well regarded throughout the country.
The essence of the tariff-based scheme is that it identifies types of injury, giving standard figures for damages for each injury—rather like the Northern Ireland model, which was mentioned earlier and which has been in existence for some time.

Mr. Trimble in: indicated dissent.

Mr. Shersby: That is certainly the advice that I have received from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. My concern, therefore, is that if we move to a tariff-based scheme a number of anomalies will appear.
In the guidance given to the CICB by the Judicial Studies Board, types of injury are identified and, according the seriousness of the injury, given a bracket within which compensation would be appropriate. Those brackets are often wide, because it is recognised that each individual experiences a different type of injury, and the compensation received should take account of that. One broken arm can be quite different from another, depending on the circumstances in which it was broken—as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was at pains to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Ms Gillan). The present scheme allows experienced lawyers to study all aspects of a case. That is the job that they are paid for and they do it very well. The scheme over which they have presided is fair and puts the victim of a criminal in roughly the same position as a civil claimant.
It must be remembered that there can be no duplication of state benefits. All benefits paid by the state, all private pensions and much private insurance are counted as credit against damages, to reduce the state's outlay under the present system. If a victim is injured by a motor car used as a weapon—in other words, the person is deliberately run down—he can apply to the Motor Insurers Bureau for compensation under common law. But if a victim is injured by a very different piece of metal such as a crowbar—we would all deplore that, but it happens all too frequently these days—he would have to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and he would obtain much less by way of damages. Can that be justified? We should at the very least be concerned about it.
My other worry derives form the fact that it would be impossible to provide any meaningful tariff for many of the types of injury that people incur. Let us take, for instance, the horrible experiences of facial and bodily scarring, post-traumatic stress disorder, or sexual abuse, including rape—these are all obvious examples of what I am talking about. How can any standard figure be set for such injuries? Why should not the present system continue, under which the damages are assessed by one of the lawyers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred? I remind the House that the lawyers concerned are usually Queen's Counsel and very experienced in their jobs.
What is the basic reason for the tariff-based scheme that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to introduce? It is to save money, a perfectly respectable objective for any Home Secretary. There is no doubt that the cost of compensating victims for criminal injuries has been rising inexorably in the past few years, and is set to continue rising. A tariff-based scheme will ensure that the costs of compensation gradually flatten out and do not increase in line with the projections made for the present scheme. Obviously any Cabinet Minister has to take account of these matters and must listen to what the Treasury says about them. I have no objection to that. My right hon. and learned Friend has given many fine demonstrations of standing up to the Treasury, and I believe that on this occasion it is important that he do so again and say, "I am sorry, but we cannot go down this path."
If the Treasury wants to save money, I invite Treasury Ministers to come to any meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, on which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I have the pleasure of serving. We could have offered my right hon. and learned Friend £48 million a couple of weeks ago from the Department of Employment's Field system, £43 million from the Wessex health authority, or a few hundred thousand pounds from the Development Board for Rural Wales. The list is endless. The PAC has identified savings of about £208 million a year; that is not chicken feed, and it would go quite a long way towards keeping the present scheme going.
All hon. Members who have spoken today have approached this difficult issue on what I would call a House of Commons basis. What we are considering is fundamental to the way in which victims are compensated and we should be very careful before we move away from the scheme that we have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham spoke of delays in settling claims. I have been reading the reports of the CICB; The figures for the year ending 31 March 1992 show that the board received about


61,400 applications, as against 50,820 in 1990ߝ91. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pointed out, 80 per cent. of those claims were settled within nine months. That is a fine record.
I do not for a moment accept that the argument that a tariff-based scheme will lead to much quicker settlement of claims is sufficient to justify the diminution of available benefits. A parent came to see me in my constituency the other night whose son had lost the sight of his eye because he had been stabbed by a youth. He received £18,000 compensation. Would he have got that much under the tariff-based scheme? I think not.
I am sorry to have to disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. On many occasions recently I have given him my full and unqualified support for just about every feature of the Bill, but I regret that I am unable to be enthusiastic about his proposed scheme and I shall find it difficult to support it.

Mr. Bermingham: I start by posing again the question that I put to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) in whose speech I intervened. I asked why the compensation paid to a person for criminal injury should be different from that paid to someone who suffers a civil injury.
I declare two interests. First, I am sponsored by the GMB which merely contributes towards my election expenses and pays a small sum per year towards constituency costs. Secondly, I am a practising lawyer.
Many members of the union that sponsors me work in jobs in which assaults take place. Members of the union that sponsors my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) are also regularly assaulted.
Sometimes one cannot immediately assess or "tarrify"—whatever word one wants to use—an injury because some injuries are stress related, and how can one assess continuing damage? For some people who are injured as a result of criminal assaults there is no recovery. That is sad, but it shows the sort of world in which we live. The Government are dedicated to the fight against—or rather the fight for law and order and against crime.

Mr. Graham Allen: My hon. Friend was right first time.

Mr. Bermingham: I know. It was a Freudian slip.
The Government say that they are dedicated to defeating crime, but their proposals make it appear that they are dedicated to penalising the victim. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said that 8.5 per cent. of compensation scheme money went to lawyers. If the hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of what has to be done in the preparation of a criminal injuries compensation claim he would not make such a statement. Sometimes the forms are complicated and a great deal of information is required. There is no legal aid and costs are not paid. Therefore, the victims often pay the cost of assembling the evidence to substantiate their claims.
Injuries may be complex. I shall give an example of many years ago from my own knowledge. A young lady was struck with an iron bar outside a night club. On the face of it, there appeared to be a tiny fracture to her skull. No doubt on the tariff system a small sum would have been paid. But it was later discovered that she also had a fracture to the base of the skull and brain fluid was leaking down into the spinal column, causing infection. The ultimate injury to her was massive. Her loss of amenity was

effectively the destruction of her life, because she could no longer work, dance or look after her family. Under the proposals, a straight tariff would be paid. Under the present system, such loss of amenities is added to the claim and covered.
Can the Government justifiably say that, although someone injured in a civil accident should be properly compensated, a person injured in a criminal attack should not? I know from the report some years ago on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, on which I sat, that most of the claims are for small amounts. Most are settled rapidly because the injuries are readily identifiable. However, for the small proportion of claims that cannot be readily identified or readily quantified, delay is not a problem. There are interim payments.
I can tell the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that, unless one wishes to be negligent, a motor accident claim is never settled until the full extent of the loss is known. Hon. Members should not pray in aid delay as a reason for destroying the rights of citizens to proper compensation when they have been criminally injured. A civilised society tends to look after the victim. The Home Secretary's proposal is not in aid of the victim but against him. It is a disgrace and it ought to be stopped.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I had not intended to speak, but, as the debate seems to be one sided, for the sake of fairness something should be said about the Government's justifiable reasons for taking this step. We are debating victims, and no Government have ever done as much for victims as this one. Not only have we paid out and helped in numerous ways more victims than ever before, but, compared with other countries, our help for victims is outstanding. We provide 20 times the rate provided by the Germans and about seven times as much as that provided by the French. The Italians do not even have a scheme.
6.15 pm
We should not get too worked up on the premise that nothing is being done for victims. Not only do we give them money and support, but there is a victims charter to make sure that they are much better cared for than ever before. We have advice and counselling systems and we give substantial sums for victim support. I think that the figure this year approaches £10 million. Victim support agencies are not wholly opposed to the proposal because they see that there is an advantage in speeding up delivery of the system.
One result of all that the Government are doing for victims is showing forth. It is that more people than ever are reporting crime, for the simple reason that we have a much better attitude towards victims than has ever been displayed by any previous Government. I now come to the main point of contention.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If we are doing so well and if the compensation is so honourable and decent, why are we making changes?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am about to deal with the system. I said that I would do that and the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here for most of the debate, suddenly got up and asked questions [Interruption.]

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Very well, I concede that the hon. Gentleman has been here from beginning to end.
If hon. Members listen, perhaps they will hear the answers to their questions. The principal attack is that the tariff system which is to be imposed will somehow cause an injustice. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) conceded that most victims will be as well, or perhaps even better, off, but he said that thousands would lose. There are two ways in which one can lose. There is a loss if the amount of money a victim is to receive now is cut. There is also a loss if a victim has to wait indefinitely for a payment that is due. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) shakes his head and winces. I am delighted that he is here to take part in the debate, because I know, as he knows, that one of the greatest complaints from both of us over the years is about the slowness of the payment of legal aid fees. He and I would much rather go to a cash delivery desk immediately we have finished a case and say, "Pay out £100" than wait for 12 or 18 months for £150 [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Gentleman that under that system that was all I got.
People would rather have the money in their hands now than have to wait indefinitely for perhaps a larger sum. I agree that having to wait for 18 months for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to pay out is a disgrace. Even if 80 per cent. is paid out in nine months, it is still a disgrace. That disgrace comes about because there is a backlog of 81,000 people waiting for some payment. The system has become overweight and inefficient. It is not delivering justice because people have to wait too long for payment.
Opposition Members say that there is something horrible, unpleasant and unacceptable about a tariff system but all these payments are made according to a tariff system. That is how it works. The courts use a tariff system, as does the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We are not substituting a tariff for a non-tariff system but a statutory tariff system for a judicial tariff system, which is not the same objection. If a statutory tariff system delivers more money, more quickly to more people, that will be the justification for my right hon. and learned Friend's plan.
The proposal will not cut the money paid out. My right hon. and learned Friend has already given an undertaking that the new scheme will pay out £500 million more over the next three years. It will make payment quicker and more certain. Recipients will be able to make disposition as to how they will spend the money because they will know months, sometimes years, in advance how much it will be.

Ms Jean Corston: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a respected lawyer, saying that he does not see the relevance to applicants under the CICB scheme of damages for handicap in the labour market?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I have not mentioned handicap in the labour market. I was arguing that if we can devise a tariff system that will deliver more benefit to more people more quickly, that is its justification. The judicial way of making assessments is not necessarily the best, because it is the slower way and does not necessarily deliver more ultimately.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield made a specific complaint about loss of earnings not being taken into account, but it will, indirectly, because the new tariffs will be assessed—there is a mathematical calculation—

according to what the tariffs have been over a period. Those tariffs take into account awards that were made, including loss of earnings. As the new assessment will be based on the old assessment, which included loss of earnings, that element will be included. I agree that the new system may not be perfect. I do not like it—I like more work for lawyers. At the end of the day, however, more work for lawyers is less important than providing a benefit to victims.
After a year or two, there may be a few pounds more in loss of earnings, but that accounts for a small proportion of total awards made. Loss of earnings have not accounted for half the value of an award, but only a minute proportion—some of which, perhaps the larger part, will indirectly be taken into account by the new tariff.
It is easy for lawyers, pressure groups and Opposition Members, who always have an axe to grind—I do not blame them—to oppose the scheme. In a perfect world, such a scheme would not be needed. In a perfect world, more lawyers could do more work and earn more money, and awards could be tailored to the needs of the individual. But it is not a perfect world. What is most imperfect is that victims do not receive their payments for months and months. Almost anything that we can do in a reasonable system to speed the delivery of more money to more people is justified. All those who agree with that proposition will support my right hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) tried to defend the Government's proposal, partly on the ground that it will cut delay—but that is often caused by the need to ascertain the extent of the injury and to be certain of an injured person's prognosis. Consequently, an element of delay is inevitable. If one compares delay in the payment of criminal injuries compensation with the delay that occurs in civil actions, it is clear that the latter is greater. While it is desirable to reduce delay, it is an inevitable element, so that point is overdone.
The hon. and learned Gentleman stated accurately that courts operate a tariff system with regard to loss of amenity, pain and suffering—but there is no tariff system with regard to loss of earnings. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it played only a small part in criminal injury compensation in the past. That must be because the injuries were largely non-incapacitating. Where there is serious injury leading to loss of earnings, the need for fair compensation is greatest.
While some elements of the scheme must be conventional and have a tariff element, with other aspects of it a tariff is totally inappropriate. Justice demands that individual circumstances are properly taken into account. It must be obvious from my remarks that I consider the Government's proposals to be retrograde.
I am almost entirely in agreement with the criticisms and remarks of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), except when he said that the scheme operating in England and Scotland is the best in the world. It is not as good as that which operates in Northern Ireland. I must point out to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that the Northern Ireland scheme is quite different. It is a statutory scheme and has a tariff element—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does it?

Mr. Trimble: Of course it does, but it also offers compensation for loss of earnings. As a statutory scheme, it also offers the right to compensation. It has always been a statutory scheme, dating back to the 18th century. It offers a right of appeal to the courts. On all three counts, and certainly the last two, it is preferable to the English and Scottish scheme.
While I appreciate that the Home Secretary's scheme would operate only in Great Britain and would not immediately be applicable to Northern Ireland, the scheme's announcement and nature are causing considerable alarm in Northern Ireland. I use the word "alarm" consciously and without exaggeration. As far as I am aware, all relevant bodies in Northern Ireland are worried in case the new scheme is introduced there. They are anxious to ensure that that does not happen. Among those most concerned are members of the security forces, police, Royal Irish Regiment, prison service and so on—many of whom have suffered severe incapacitating injuries over the past few decades. They are anxious that if the new scheme comes to Northern Ireland, they will be left with wholly inadequate compensation to cover their financial loss.
I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland going out to consultation. My memory must be at fault, because I cannot recall the Secretary of State saying anything on that matter, and nor can the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). That might reflect the way that the Northern Ireland Office habitually works. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland nearly two months ago, but have not yet received a reply.

Mr. Barnes: In response to my written question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) replied that the Government are
currently considering what lessons might be learnt for Northern Ireland from the forthcoming changes in the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Great Britain."—[Official Report, 17 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 844.]
So it is likely that the scheme is under serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that, prior to the scheme being introduced in Northern Ireland, it will go out for consultation—which did not happen in Great Britain.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, which reflects on the way in which the Northern Ireland Office works. Things often happen without Northern Ireland Members being informed. It is interesting to know the identity of the Minister who replied to the hon. Gentleman's question, because it confirms the suspicions of those who have to deal with the Northern Ireland Office about who is the villain of the piece in attempts to cut compensation in Northern Ireland.
I think that I have said enough to show the anxiety that exists and to make it clear to the Home Secretary that there is real worry about changes to the Northern Ireland system. There will be substantial opposition among members of the Ulster Unionist party and all Northern Ireland Members to any attempt to degrade the system that operates in Northern Ireland by reducing it even to the level of the existing system in England and Wales, let alone to the level of the system that he now proposes.
The best thing that the Home Secretary can do is extend the statutory Northern Ireland scheme to the rest of the

United Kingdom. It would benefit everyone. If the Home Secretary wishes to cut costs—as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said, it is perfectly legitimate to wish to cut costs—the first thing that he should consider is recovering more from criminals by way of reparation. Not enough is done in that respect.
Many criminals are able to compensate. Many criminals' gains from their criminal activities could be recovered by the state. It is not appropriate or fair to leave it to the victim to pursue the criminal by civil actions. The state can and should do much more. It could recover sums that would go a long way toward defraying the compensation bill. Such a system would probably save as much as, if not more than, the proposed scheme.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of a single case in which someone involved in a diamond robbery, a bank robbery or any other major robbery who is convicted has been made to pay compensation to anyone?

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Member for that intervention. I am not in a position to answer his question. I am sure that the Home Secretary has heard it and will give him an answer when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I declare an interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. Police officers are among the people who will be most affected by the changes. One in 12 applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are police officers who have often suffered from the rising toll of assaults with which police officers have to cope.
Criminal injuries compensation is a permanent and substantial programme of public expenditure. Therefore, as a matter of parliamentary propriety, it ought to have statutory authority. The Royal Commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury and the Public Accounts Committee have made that point. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made an attempt to put compensation on a statutory basis. The view of Parliament was clear: it wanted a statutory basis. That was expressed in the 1988 Act. The Government have failed for various reasons to implement that provision. Yet Parliament's view is clear. The Government's neglect of the clear view expressed by Parliament, and their attempt to introduce instead an administrative scheme when an Act of Parliament is still on the statute book to deal with the matter, amounts to contemptuous disregard of Parliament and parliamentary propriety.
We are changing the system from one that is commonly regarded, although it has some delays, as attaining a standard of fairness. Parliament should give the full consideration that it gives to a statute to such important changes that would lead to unfairness. Fairness in dealing with the widely differing circumstances of victims is important if victims are not also to see themselves as victims of the unfairness of the system of compensation.
Each case is different; it has its own factors. A 24-year-old person blinded in a criminal attack, who has a family and two children to support, and is unlikely to be able to carry on his livelihood is in a different position from that of an 80-year-old in an old folks' home who has been injured. The injury may be the same, but the impact on the people injured is different. The law recognises that


difference and seeks to regard it with fairness. The system of varying tariffs in the common law system recognises the different circumstances of assaults.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend agree with the representations made by the CICB to Ministers that the intention throughout the history of the criminal injuries compensation scheme has been to compensate a victim of a crime of violence in exactly the same way as he would have been compensated if he had sued his assailant in the civil courts? It suggested that, instead of moving towards a scratch-card system of compensation payments, it would be much better to tailor the payment on a structured settlement basis which took precisely the account that my hon. Friend suggested of differences in the impact of injuries throughout a person's life and according to the stage in a person's life at which the injuries occurred.

Mr. O'Brien: That is a much fairer system than that proposed by the Government. When the Home Secretary replies to the debate, will he explain why a person who has been injured by a hit-and-run driver and is entitled to claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau should receive compensation under common law principles that would be denied to a victim of a criminal attack with an iron bar? What is the moral difference? The system that the Home Secretary intends to create would result in those two victims receiving different amounts of compensation.
The Government's proposed scheme is about the Treasury saying that it wants money at the expense of the victims of crime. It is about compensation without compassion for victims.

Ms Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the game was given away in a letter written on 31 March 1993 by the Minister of State's predecessor, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), to the chairman of the CICB, Lord Carlisle, in which he said:
The tariff scheme will not therefore aim to 'compensate' people in the same way as before. It will however maintain the underlying purpose of the scheme which is to provide a tangible recognition of Society's sympathy and concern for the victim"?
Does my hon. Friend agree that "sympathy and concern" do not pay the mortgage? Is he aware that a Conservative Member who saw me reading a brief from the CICB expressed the view that the new scheme would have the same effect on the Government as the Child Support Agency—the new scheme would go through and the Government would live to regret it?

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the Government do regret it. The proposals are a betrayal of the people about whom the Government have trumpeted their concern for so many months. They will rob those who have suffered the worst and most serious injuries of the fair compensation that was part of a criminal justice system which otherwise does little or nothing for victims.
Although speed of delivery is important, it should not be bought at the price of unfairness and injustice in the quality of what is delivered. Speeding up the process can be done without arbitrary tariffs. The Government say that the new scheme will be much quicker, but that is not necessarily the case. The main cause of delay is often the receipt of medical reports, police reports and certificates.
The Government's scheme will do little or nothing about that. The very small savings in time will not be sufficient to justify the increased unfairness that the system creates.
I shall give a few examples of unfairness. I have many examples, but I shall give only a few because I do not want to delay the House. In the case of Storier, a 34-year-old police constable was assaulted in April 1988 and suffered permanent damage to the base of his spine. He lost his job in December 1990 and was unable to work again. He received damages of £21,000 under the old scheme, but would receive £7,500 under the Government's new scheme.
In the case of Parslow, a Birmingham security officer was assaulted by robbers and received severe leg injuries. His compensation under the old scheme was £74,500. Under the new scheme, it would be £5,000. In the case of Burleigh, a man received a brain injury after being hit with a snooker cue. The compensation under the old scheme was £500,000. Under the new scheme, it would be less than half that.
A recent analysis of the case of Colin Hickman, a solicitor who was recently stabbed to death, shows that under the old scheme his compensation would have amounted, because of his earnings and circumstances, to about £100,000. Under the new scheme, a fatality amounts to £10,000. The new scheme is a betrayal of victims and victims' families.
The tariffs were arrived at by studying the median award for each case. The median was used because it did not, in the words of the White Paper,
distort by factors such as loss of earnings".
In other words, the scheme will say to future victims of crime who are unable to work for lengthy periods—perhaps never again—"Tough luck, mate". In a sense, that is precisely the message that the Home Secretary is sending victims: "Tough luck—my mates down at the Treasury want some more money, and you are going to have to pay the price".

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The new clauses have a common theme: in one way or another, they are designed to prevent the introduction of our new tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation on 1 April.
I remind the House that the present scheme for compensating victims of crime was designed no fewer than 30 years ago. In 1965–66, the first full year of the scheme, 2,452 applications were made to the board, and the amount of compensation paid totalled £400,000. Since then, there has been a staggering increase in both the number of new applications and the compensation paid.
For example, by 1987–88—when the Criminal Justice Bill that included provisions to make the present scheme statutory was passing through Parliament—there were 43,000 applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and the amount of compensation paid had risen from £400,000 to £52 million. By 1992–93, the number of applications had increased by a further 50 per cent. to 66,000, and the amount of compensation had increased threefold from the 1987–88 figure to £152 million. In 1993–94, that figure will be around £170 million—a further increase of 12 per cent.
The current scheme was not intended to cope with that volume of business. Change is, therefore, needed to provide a simpler, faster and more transparent service for victims.
If we are talking of the speed with which claims are settled, we should at least proceed on an accurate basis. I do not know the origin of the figure introduced into the debate by, I think, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who suggested that 80 per cent. of claims were settled within nine months. I have the board's latest report in front of me: it gives the percentage of cases resolved within three, six and nine months. The figure given for claims settled within nine months is 30.6 per cent. That is an improvement on the 1991–92 figure, which was only 26.8 per cent., but it falls far short of the 80 per cent. cited, for some reason, by the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, it leaves considerable room for further improvement.

Mr. John Gunnell: rose—

Mr. Howard: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, while the hon. Member for St. Helens, South is thinking about what I have said.

Mr. Gunnell: The Home Secretary has complained about the increase in volume and cost. Would he say that that was out of proportion to the increase in crime that has occurred over the same period, along with an increase in inflation?

Mr. Howard: It is hugely out of proportion to the increase in crime. Between 1965–66 and 1992–93, violent crime increased fivefold—an appalling statistic. The number of applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board increased by a multiple of 27, and the amount of compensation from the board increased by a multiple of 378.

Mr. Blair: As far as I know, the authority for the statistic that a decision is given within nine months in 80 per cent. of cases can be found in a speech made by Lord Carlisle in the other place. He is, after all, chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and that is precisely what he said.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman consults paragraph 6.2 of the board's 29th report, entitled "Accounts for the year ended 31 March 1993", he will see a table, very clearly set out, showing the time taken to process applications to the relevant stage for each year that is given. I hope that he will then see that my arithmetic—the calculation that I have made during the debate—is accurate.

Mr. Maclennan: Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us what period is covered by that report. Lord Carlisle was absolutely clear about the matter when he said:
I remind the Minister that that has now dramatically changed and that in 80 per cent. of all our applications a decision is now given to the victim within a nine-month period."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 1994; Vol. 552, c. 1083.]

Mr. Howard: The year that I quoted was 1992–93, the latest for which full figures are available. The calculation that I made was accurate for that year.

Mr. Bermingham: Given that I caused all this discussion, let me remind the Home Secretary that figures in reports are often misleading. It is a question of the decision that is made, rather than the sum paid. The decision that someone is entitled to an award is crucial, rather than the date on which the sum is paid. I think that

Lord Carlisle would agree. I merely suggest that the Home Secretary should be wary of figures, which can often cause problems even for Home Secretaries.

Mr. Howard: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, they have not done so on this occasion. Paragraph 6.1 provides the following definition of the time involved:
A case is considered to have been resolved either when the applicant accepts the Board's assessment or, in the case of applications which have been disallowed and no application for a hearing has been lodged, three months after the date of notification of the decision.
There is no question of taking the date of payment as the relevant decision, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Bermingham: That is not what I am saying. I am saying, very simply, that it is a case of the decision. The decision may be to refuse, which is non-appealed; a decision to grant compensation may be further delayed because of assessment. Those are the dates that I am taking into account, not the date of payment.

Mr. Howard: As I have made plain to the hon. Gentleman, the date of payment does not enter into the matter; it is not part of the definition set out in paragraph 6.1 of the report, which is the definition that I am using. The reference to payment is a complete irrelevance, as it was never part of the figures that I cited.
I make no bones about the fact that change is also needed to control the costs of compensation, which are becoming unsustainable. We estimate that, without reform, the annual cost of the present arrangements could be in the region of £500 million by the end of the decade. Under the new tariff scheme, the cost is likely to be about £250 million—still a very large sum by the standards of any other state scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) gave the figures for some other countries; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out that Italy has no scheme at all.
Our scheme will remain the most generous state scheme anywhere, as it is now. We pay more compensation than all the other European Union countries put together—and that will continue under our proposed new arrangements.
We all know that, in the real world, resources are not unlimited. If we retained the present arrangements, the amount spent on compensation between now and the year 2001 would be about £2.5 billion. That level of expenditure is simply not sustainable, which is one of the reasons why we need a radically different approach—and why we need it quickly. The tariff scheme will achieve that.
Under the tariff scheme, about £1.4 billion is expected to be spent on compensation between now and the year 2001—over £1 billion less than under the current scheme. I make no apologies for stating that bluntly. It is vital to secure the best value for what is, after all, still a huge amount of taxpayers' money. That is an objective which any prudent and responsible Government should always bear in mind.
If the current scheme continued, the taxpayer would have to provide an extra £250 million a year by the end of the century. Is the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) committing the Labour party to that extra expenditure? He should choose his words with care. He should remember that under the Dunfermline doctrine, which was laid down by the shadow Chancellor, even though nothing said outside this Chamber counts, anything that is said here does count. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can


traipse around the broadcasting studios making pledge after pledge, but they will not count for a bean under the Dunfermline doctrine. On the other hand, anything that is said here will be used in evidence, as even the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) concedes.
The Government want a scheme that is generous, as ours is and will continue to be, while ensuring that it offers victims an effective service. That means an efficient scheme that will remain affordable in the future. A scheme based on common law damages, which is time consuming and complex to administer, and under which the average award has risen each year by 5 per cent. more than the rate of inflation, can no longer provide that service. The time has come for a simpler, more straightforward scheme that is easier to administer, gets awards to claimants more quickly, and does all that within a realistic and controllable budget. That is exactly what our tariff scheme aims to do.
In future, as hon. Members know, payments will be made from a tariff of awards for injuries of comparable severity. All eligible applicants with the same injury will receive the same award. They will be able to see from the tariff how much that award is likely to be, and they will receive their compensation more quickly and with less fuss. It is inevitable that some people will get less under the new scheme than under the present one, but most claimants will receive as much as, or more than, they would under the current arrangements. At least 54 per cent. will be in that position when the tariff scheme is introduced. A further 16 per cent. will lose £500 or less, and—an important consideration to many victims—they will get their awards more quickly.
Much has been made of the few cases in which applicants will not receive large sums for loss of earnings and future medical care, which might have been payable under the existing scheme.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: There are two matters that I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to address. First, what burden of proof is required to establish that injuries are genuine and claims are not false? Secondly, would not a system of appeal—by the Crown in the case of the effects of injury becoming less severe, and by the victim in the case of the effects of injury worsening—get over the difficulty caused by payments being made too quickly?

Mr. Howard: I do not quite follow the logic of my hon. and learned Friend's second point. With regard to the first, the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities.
I was explaining that we have set a generous upper limit of £250,000 for awards. In the past three years, out of a total of 180,000 applications, just seven awards a year have, on average, exceeded that sum. Nor should it be forgotten that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is not the only source of state aid for those who have suffered criminal injuries. Such people also receive generous and long-term support from the national health service and from the Department of Social Security, and many occupational groups benefit from generous sick pay and pension schemes. Nor should we forget that there are many other kinds of injury or misfortune for which there is not and never has been a special state scheme of help.
From what I have said, it will be clear that we do not accept the thrust of the amendments. Nor do we accept the

argument that, in seeking to change the basis of the criminal injuries compensation scheme while the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1980 remain unimplemented, we have in some way acted improperly or unlawfully. As that matter is currently before the courts, it would not be proper for me to comment further on it.
I do not say that the tariff scheme may not be capable of improvement. We have already made it clear that we shall monitor very closely the way it works and will be ready to listen to the views of responsible bodies and practitioners about how it might be improved. If we need to make changes or refinements, we will. Once the new scheme has settled down and can be seen to be working effectively, we shall be better placed to consider giving statutory force to the new arrangements. But the new arrangements constitute a framework within which claims will be quantified more simply, settled more speedily, ensure that more than 50 per cent. of claimants get at least as much as they do under the present scheme and yet cost the taxpayer substantially less than would have been the case had the present arrangements continued.
On that basis, I ask the House to reject the new clauses.

Mr. Blair: My reply will be very brief. The Home Secretary has given only two reasons for proceeding with the new scheme. The first is that it will be simpler, faster and more transparent for victims. That argument has been rejected by every victims' organisation. It is absurd to pretend that the scheme is being introduced for the benefit of victims, when the organisations that deal with victims unanimously decry its nature.
The second reason is that this is all about cutting costs. If that is the real reason—and I suggest that it is—the wretchedly deceptive White Paper should never have been issued, and we should have had proper consultation with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and others to work out some better type of scheme.
The introduction of the scheme in this way is, in our view, wholly reprehensible. If the number of applications for criminal injuries compensation has soared, the answer is not to cut support for victims but to take measures to cut the crime that gives rise to the applications. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely failed to answer our case. We shall press the new clause to a Division, and I ask my hon. Friends and others who believe in the case of victims to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 296.

Division No. 181]
[6.56 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Alton, David
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.






Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tarn
Keen, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Enright, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
McMaster, Gordon


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fraser, John
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Maginnis, Ken


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Alice


Garrett, John
Mallon, Seamus


George, Bruce
Mandelson, Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marek, Dr John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godsiff, Roger
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mildred
Maxton, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michael, Alun


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Harvey, Nick
Morley, Elliot


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin





Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L.
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pope, Greg
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Randall, Stuart
Trimble, David


Raynsford, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walley, Joan


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, Jimmy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. John Cummings and


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Congdon, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, Andrew
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dykes, Hugh






Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor





Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trend, Michael


Soames, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
viggers, Peter


Spink, Dr Robert
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spring, Richard
Walden, George


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stephen, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thomason, Roy
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

PREVENTION OF MISUSE OF DRUGS BY YOUNG PEOPLE

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of each authority, in co-operation with the police, probation service and such other agencies as it thinks fit, to assess the need for education to prevent the misuse of drugs and other drug-related crime among persons under the age of 18 years in its area.

(2) The Secretary of State may make grants to authorities in order for them—

(a) to fulfil their duty under subsection (1) above, and
(b) to provide the education which, having made the assessment under subsection (1) above, they deem necessary.

(3) In this section, "authority" means—

(a) the council of any county so far as they are the council for an area for which there are no district councils,
(b) the council of any district comprised in an area for which there is no district council,
(c) a London borough council,
(d) the Common Council of the City of London, or
(e)the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this we may discuss the following: new clause 5—National drug prevention strategy—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a national strategy for drug prevention.
(2) In drawing up the strategy under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the needs of

(a)persons who are detained in prisons, young offender institutions, remand centres and secure training centres, and
(b)children in the care of local authorities.'.

New Clause 51—Misuse of drugs—
'The third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh columns of Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (which prescribes the maximum punishment by way of a fine or imprisonment for offences under the Act) shall be amended as follows—

(1) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 4(2) (production, or being concerned in the production, of a controlled drug) the words "(a) Summary" in column three, "6


months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column four, "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column 5 and "3 months or £500; or both" in column six shall be omitted; and for the words "Life or a fine; or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "50 years" and for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column five shall be substituted the words "25 years"; and for the words "5 years of a fine; or both" in column six there shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(2) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 4(3) (supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug or being concerned in the doing of either activity by another) the words "(a) Summary" in column three, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column four, "six months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column five and "3 months or £500; or both" in column six shall be omitted; and for the words "Life or a fine or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "50 years", for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column five shall be substituted the words "25 years", and for the words "5 years or a fine; or both" in column six shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(3) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 5(2) (having possession of a controlled drug) for the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" and "7 years and a fine; or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "Detention in a rehabilitation centre for a term at the court's discretion"; for the words "3 months or £500; or both" and "5 years or a fine; of both" in column five shall be substituted the words "Detention in a rehabilitation centre for a term at the court's discretion"; and for the words "3 months or £200; or both" and "2 years or a fine; or both" in column six shall be substituted the words "Detention in a rehabilitation centre for a term at the court's discretion'".
(4) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 5(3) (having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another) the words "(a) Summary" in column three, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column four, "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column five, and "3 months or £500; or both" in column six shall be omitted; and for the words "Life or a fine; or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "50 years", for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column five shall be substituted the words "25 years", and for the words "5 years or a fine; or both" in column six shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(5) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 6(2) (cultivation of cannabis plant) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" shall be omitted. For the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column seven shall be substituted the words "25 years".
(6) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 8 (being the occupier, or concerned in the management, of premises and permitting or suffering certain activities to take place there) the words "(a) Summary" in column three, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column four, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column five, and "3 months or £500; or both" in column six shall be omitted; and for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "25 years", for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column five shall be substituted the words "25 years", and for the words "5 years or a fine; or both" in column six shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(7) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 9 (offences relating to opium) the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "14 years or a fine or both" in column seven shall be substituted the words "25 years".
(8) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 9A (Prohibition of supply etc. of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs) for the word "Summary" in column three there shall be substituted the words "On indictment" and for the words "6 months or level 5 on the standard scale; or both" shall be substituted the words "5 years".
(9) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 11(2) (contravention of direction relating to safe custody of controlled drugs) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or level 5 on the standard scale; or both" shall be omitted; and for the words "2 years or a fine; or both" shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(10) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 12(6) (contravention of direction prohibiting

practitioner etc from possessing supply etc controlled drugs) the words "(a) Summary" in column three, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column four, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column five, and the words "3 months or £500; or both" in column six shall be omitted; and for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "25 years"; for the words "14 years or a fine; of both" in column five shall be substituted the words "25 years" and for the words "5 years or a fine; or both" in column six shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(11) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 13(3) (contravention of direction prohibiting practitioner etc from prescribing supply etc controlled drugs) the words "(a) Summary" in column three, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column four, the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column five, and the words "3 months or £500; or both" in column six shall be omitted; and for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column four shall be substituted the words "25 years", for the words "14 years or a fine or both" in column five shall be substituted the words "25 years" and for the words "5 years or a fine; or both" in column six shall be substituted the words "10 years".
(12) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 17(3) (failure to comply with notice requiring information relating to prescribing supply etc of drugs) for the word "Summary" in column three shall be substituted the words "On indictment" and for the words "level 3 on the standard scale" in column seven shall be substituted the words "6 months".
(13) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 17(4) (giving false information in purported compliance with notice requiring information relating to prescribing supply etc drugs) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "2 years or a fine; or both; in column seven shall be substituted the words "4 years".
(14) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 18(1) (contravention of regulations (other than regulations relating to addicts)) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" shall be omitted. For the words "2 years or a fine; or both" in column seven shall be substituted the words "4 years".
(15) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 18(2) (contravention of terms of licence or other authority (other than licence issued under regulations relating to addicts)) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "2 years or a fine; or both" in column seven shall be substituted the words "4 years".
(16) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 18(3) (giving false evidence in purported compliance with obligation to give information imposed under or by virtues of regulations) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "2 years or a fine; or both" in column seven shall be substituted the words "4 years".
(17) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 18(4) (giving false information, or producing documents etc containing false statement etc, for purpose of obtaining issue or renewal of a licence or other authority) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "2 years or a fine, or both" shall be substituted the words "4 years".
(18) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 20 (assisting in or inducing commission outside United Kingdom of an offence punishable under a corresponding law) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and the words "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "14 years or a fine; or both" in column seven shall be substituted the words "25 years".
(19) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 23(4) (obstructing exercise of powers of search etc or concealing books, drugs etc) the words "(a) Summary" in column three and "6 months or the prescribed sum; or both" in column seven shall be omitted; and for the words "2 years or a fine; or both" shall be substituted the words "15 years.".'

New Clause 52—Detention in a rehabilitation centre—


-'In section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Restrictions of possession of controlled drugs), after subsection (5) shall be inserted the following subsection:

"(5A) Anyone convicted of an offence under this section either on indictment or summarily shall be detained in a rehabilitation centre for a term at the court's discretion.".'.

New Clause 64—Drug dependence and rehabilitation programmes in prison—

'(1) It shall be the duty of every prison to provide drug dependence rehabilitation programmes to any prisoner who has need of them.
(2) The duty under this section shall be met if such programmes are provided by voluntary organisations.'.

New Clause 65—Reduction in sentences for offenders willing to attend drug rehabilitation programmes—

'(1) If a court is satisfied that misuse of drugs contributed to the offence of which an offender has been found guilty, in determining what sentence to pass on that offender, a court shall take into account his willingness to undergo a drug dependence or drug rehabilitation programme of a type specified by the Secretary of State by regulations made by Statutory Instrument.
(2) If, as a result of taking into account any matter referred to in subsection (1) above, the court imposes a punishment on the offender which is less severe than it would otherwise have done, it shall state in open court that it has done so.
(3) If a person fails to complete, or fails to complete successfully, a programme under subsection (1) when a court has reduced a sentence under subsection (2), he shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) An offence under subsection (3) shall be punishable in like manner as the offence under what that person was originally sentenced under subsection (1).'.

New Clause 67—Decriminalisation of cannabis possession and use>—
'.—(1) The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section.
(2) In section 2 (controlled drugs and their classification for the purposes of this Act)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) for the words "Part I, II or III" there shall be substituted the words "Part I, II, III or IIIA";
(b) for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(b) the expressions 'Class A drug', 'Class B drug', 'Class C drug' and 'Class D drug' mean any of the substances and products for the time being specified respectively in Part I, Part II, Part HI, and Part MA of that Schedule;"
(3) Section 6 (restriction of cultivation of cannabis plant) is hereby repealed.
(4) In Schedule 2 (which lists controlled drugs for the purposes of section 2 of that Act)—

(a)in paragraph 1(a) of Part I the words "Cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin" and "Cannabinol derivatives" shall be omitted;
(b)in paragraph 1(a) of Part II the words "Cannabis" and Cannabis resin" shall be omitted; and
(c)after paragraph 4 of Part III, there shall be inserted—"Part III A
Class D Drugs

1. The following substances, namely:—

Cannabinol
Cannabis
Cannabis resin
2. Any preparation or other product containing a substance or product for the time being specified in paragraph 1 above.".
(5) The Secretary of State shall by Order made by statutory instrument make rules for the administration, use and distribution of any Class D drug and such amendments and exceptions to the Misuse of Drug Regulations 1985 as will make lawful the production, possession and supply of any Class D drug.
(6) No Order shall be made under subsection (5) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of

State shall not lay a draft of such an Order before Parliament except after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs established under section 1 of the 1971 Act.'.

Government amendments Nos. 42, 79, and 81 to 83.

Mr. Michael: I intend to speak primarily to new clauses 4 and 5, which require, first, action to prevent drug misuse by young people and, secondly, a national strategy of drug prevention.
It is a bizarre fact that when the Bill went into Committee it contained nothing to combat the problem of drugs and drug-related crime. Bizarre is too kind a word for such an omission, given that drug-related crime is the scourge of communities up and down the country and that up to £2 billion in burglary and property theft relates to the problem. Pressure from the Labour party, which has highlighted the need to tackle the causes of crime as well as crime itself, has resulted in the Government making some response. Did Ministers recognise the craziness of cutting drug co-ordinators' posts? Did they recognise the damage that is being done by cuts in the youth service arising from Government failure to provide funds and leaving idle hands for which the devil is quick to find work? No, the Government's action was to increase the upper limit for fines for drugs offences. They did nothing to cut crime or to prevent drug misuse.
Even more telling was the method that the Minister had to use to propose that change. As the Home Secretary had missed out drugs and drug-related crime as an issue for the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Government had to drag it into the Bill with an amendment to the clause which increases penalties under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. The action that the Government propose does nothing to provide the people, the funds, the resources or the strategies to tackle the problems of drugs and drug-related crime. In Committee, the Minister introduced an increase by five times in the maximum fine level for the possession of drugs. It was not asked for and it was irrelevant to the urgent problem to be tackled. Inc identally—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to carry on her conversation elsewhere?

Mr. Michael: I was surprised, when we discussed the increase in fines for drugs in Committee, to hear that the Justices' Clerks Society had requested that rise. That was the assertion made by Conservative Members and by the Minister. They asserted it as the only example of support for their proposition that they could find. I have since been able to confirm that the Justices' Clerks Society had neither requested nor supported such an increase. The Government and their propositions ended up entirely friendless.
Frankly, increasing the upper limit of fines is irrelevant to the problem that should be addressed in the Bill. Consider the nature of that problem. The total number of notified addicts increased by five times between 1982 and 1992. The number of seizures of drugs increased by 233 per cent. between 1982 and 1992, with the number of seizures for class A drugs rising by 304 per cent.
7.15 pm
In the past week, the publication of provisional figures for drug seizures in 1993 by the National Crime Intelligence Service showed an increase of 342 per cent. in seizures at import of amphetamines compared to 1992. It


showed a 19 per cent. increase in the seizure of cannabis and a 25 per cent. increase in the seizure of heroin. The number of people found guilty of drug offences has increased by 153 per cent. since 1982. There has been an especially worrying increase in the number of offences committed by young people. Among under-17s, there has been an increase by five times in the number of drug offenders between 1982 and 1992. In the 17 to 21 age group, there has been an increase of 244 per cent. One would have thought that those increases would have concentrated the mind of Government and brought Ministers to the House with a Bill, and ultimately to the Committee with amendments, which would tackle the problem and its roots. That is not the case.
Research undertaken by Manchester university paints an alarming picture. In a sample of 800 young people aged between 15 and 16 in Merseyside and Greater Manchester, almost half had taken drugs. It appears that a new youth drug culture has developed, associated with raves and so-called dance drugs such as ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines.
It is relevant to tackle those root problems in the Bill because it is also clear that there is a link between crime and drugs. Addicts frequently steal to support their habit and the amounts of money they require to do so are truly frightening. Using a formula supplied by the Greater Manchester police, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has estimated that property worth up to £2 billion is stolen each year by drug addicts to finance their habit. That is why there is a need for a strategy to tackle the use of drugs, especially the use of hard drugs, and the problem of drug abuse by young people.
We need a policy that hits hard at the supply side of the drugs market by combating drug traffickers and dealers. That requires effective police and customs work to deal with the major importers and manufacturing, the distributors and, at street level, the low-level dealers who can make life a total misery for local people. I shall return to that important issue in a moment. In addition, there must be severe penalties for those convicted of trafficking drugs. We must also co-operate at international level to assist developing countries where drugs are grown—an aspect of foreign policy too often ignored and overlooked.
We must also cut the demand for illicit drugs at home. That is absolutely vital because it is quite clear that it is impossible to stop imports totally, despite all the efforts of the police and the customs. That is where we need the measures set out by the Opposition in the new clauses. We seek measures to discourage young people from using drugs in the first instance—for example, education programmes in schools and youth clubs—and measures to provide a range of treatment options for those misusing drugs. The Government failed to listen to those of us who protested when they ended the ring fencing of specific grants for drug and alcohol facilities, especially residential facilities, and now they are seeing their chickens coming home to roost as the availability of those facilities is reduced.
We must have adequate n-eatment for those in prison, in tremand centr s and in secure training centres. We know that drug abu e is rife in prison. Far more must be done to provide treatment for those in institutions. I am glad to see that, in some of the other new clauses, Conservative Members are waking up to the type of new clause that has been proposed by the Opposition on previous occasions. I welcome that and I only hope that they will be able to

persuade Ministers of the need for action on the fronts proposed in the measures that I put forward during the passage of what became the Criminal Justice Act 1993, before that during the passage of what became the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and during the passage of this Bill.
We need to tackle the social causes of drug misuse. Ministers have still not adequately recognised those social causes and their many detrimental impacts on our society, which often result in an output through the medium of crime. We need to provide effective sanctions for drug users who are arrested for drug-related offences.
At a local level, the importance of a partnership approach to the problems cannot be overemphasised. Just what can be achieved is shown by the King's Cross partnership. Until recently, 150 dealers in crack, cocaine and heroin operated in King's Cross. Residents felt terrorised and intimidated. A combination of robust enforcement techniques by the police, who cracked down on the dealers, and measures by the two local authorities, Camden and Islington, have produced dramatic results. The two boroughs improved street lighting, changed street design and used their licensing powers to prevent cafes from staying open all night, thereby depriving dealers of refuge. The result is that the number of dealers has been reduced to a handful in less than 18 months.
Ministers pay lip service to partnership at a local level, but those partnerships can succeed only if they have the commitment of police, local authorities and local people working together and if they have the effective support of central Government. The missing partner in so many of the equations is central Government; the people who are missing in terms of practical commitment are Ministers of the Crown.
One vital element of a co-ordinated strategy is drugs prevention education for young people. Against that background, what have the Government done about such education? Last year, they ceased funding for drugs advisers in schools. They expressed concern at the time and said that they were sure that, if drugs education was important, money would be made available by local authorities or other sources. An analysis by the National Liaison Group of Co-ordinators for Health and Drug Education shows that, whereas there were 135 drug education co-ordinators before the cuts in March 1993, now there are only 75. Those still in place are no longer able to devote most of their time to working with young people on drugs education.
No wonder the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which was set up to advise Ministers on drugs policy, would they only listen, said in a report in June 1993:
We are concerned that the ending of the funding for preventative health education will mean that many local authorities will not be able to fund their health education initiatives … those in the more deprived areas where drugs might be more prevalent may be least able to provide financial resources to finance this work.
Tackling the drugs problem and, therefore, the crime that is related to drugs requires a co-ordinated policy. It requires co-ordination of response not just from the Home Office but from other Ministers, such as those involved with health, education and local government. We see no sign of the co-ordination and close working that is needed. Yes, there is a ministerial group, but we see no sign that it will introduce the positive action that is necessary to deal with the problems of drug-related crime and the causes of those problems. It is small wonder that the chairman of the


all-party group on drugs, the hon. Member for Lewis (Mr. Rathbone), described the ending of funding as a "near scandal".
Drugs education is vital to the fight against drugs and drug-related crime. Our new clause would place a duty on the local authority to assess the need for drugs education and would allow the Home Secretary to ensure that drug prevention education was reinstated across the country. We seek the partnership that the Government should encourage. The Government should accept the new clauses tonight.

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall speak to the new clauses standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. They relate to the reduction in sentences for offenders willing to attend drug rehabilitation programmes—new clause 65–and to drug dependence and rehabilitation programmes in prison—new clause 64.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not alone in his concern about drugs and drug-related crime. We are all aware that property crime committed by drug addicts seeking to finance their cravings has been running at about £2 billion a year. I estimate that the cost is' equal to about £114 stolen from every household in the country.
I accept that the Government are fully aware of the problem and I congratulate them on trying, among other things, to identify drug addicts. An example of that is clause 128, which empowers prison officers to take samples from an inmate on arrival in prison. However, there is no point in doing that unless it is carried through to its logical conclusion. The only way that prisoners will not reoffend is to wean them off drugs in the first place. There must be no half-hearted measures and, as in all things, it takes two to tango.
As shown in new clause 65, there must be an incentive for an offender to undertake a course in drug rehabilitation. Under the new clause, there could be a reduction in sentence if an offender were willing to undertake the drug treatment programme. My response to the cynic who might say, "Well, any prisoner would agree to promise that if he got a reduction in sentence", would be that the sting in the tail would be that if the prisoner failed to complete the course successfully, he would have to serve the whole of the original sentence.
New clause 64 is the second part of the tango. It puts the onus on the Government to provide effective drug rehabilitation services. At present, they are woefully inadequate. It is not sufficient for officials at a prison such as Whitemoor, which I visited just a few months ago, to say, "Ah, we have prison counselling services available should any prisoner ask for them." It is no wonder that every prison in the land is riddled with drugs and that the inmates leave prison high on drugs only to reoffend.

Mrs. Gillan: I agree in principle with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, does she believe that statutory provision is required? A few weeks ago, I went to look at Holloway prison. The prison governor told me that he wishes to experiment with drug-free zones within the prison. That would be successful only if the prisoners undertook to be tested on a random or regular basis for drugs. In return, they would receive extra privileges. Does my hon. Friend agree that that method, rather than going the whole hog and introducing statutory provision, might be the way in which to deal with the problem?

Lady Olga Maitland: The governor of Holloway prison should look to the example of the governor of Downview prison, who already has in place a successful drug rehabilitation programme that works exactly as my hon. Friend describes. Downview prison, which is in Banstead on the edge of my constituency, has a programme run by a voluntary agency called the Addictive Diseases Trust. The trust runs intensive courses of about 12 weeks and they are attended on a voluntary basis. Since the courses began two years ago, 200 prisoners have now either successfully completed the course or are in the process of doing so.
The success of the scheme is such that it is the only prison in the country where there is a drug-free corridor. Prisoners can qualify for that corridor only if they submit themselves to a urine test, which provides an incentive for maintaining the programme on rehabilitation. We find that having one drug-free corridor in the prison has led to other prisoners asking about it. They are applying to join it from other prisons and it will undoubtedly lead to a day when the governor will say, "I shall no longer just have a corridor; I shall have an entire wing."
I have visited Downview several times and I have sat with the inmates in the counselling area, which is called the "Serenity Shack", and seen them undergoing their counselling. Interestingly, it is conducted by a former drug addict who speaks the addicts' own language and who is able to understand their problems. In that way, he puts a lot of discipline on the prisoners to complete the programme. It was interesting that the inmates told me about their sheer relief in finding a course of treatment that was effective and that relieved them of a nightmare that had begun when they were children aged between 10 and 12 and first started to experiment with soft drugs. I have had discussions with grown men, lifers and murderers, who have broken down in tears at their wasted lives. They felt that drugs controlled their lives and caused misery for their families and themselves, and they felt that there was no stopping this terrible curse.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend join me in resisting all moves to legalise soft drugs, as that is the start of the slippery slope to crime and a deprived life?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that most useful remark, which I totally support. I find it scandalous that there is a new clause that would legalise soft drugs. I cannot understand how any party can be so irresponsible.
It is interesting that those inmates now feel that a burden has been taken off their shoulders. They are fitter, healthier and have control over their lives. Most important, there is no incentive for them to reoffend when they are released from prison. That can only be of benefit to everyone.
According to a parliamentary reply that I received some weeks ago, the Government's contribution to the enormously successful programme is barely £18,000 a year. The rest of the money comes from voluntary contributions. Private discussions with the Government have not yet encouraged me to believe that they are willing to extend that programme to other prisons. They have doubts on the grounds of cost and the fact that the treatment is not fully proven. The programme at Down view prison


has meant that 20 former prisoners are now free and have successfully remained off drugs. That alone more than compensates for the cost of the programme.
It is shortsighted to say, "Let us keep watching and waiting". As the Government spend £36 million a year on the disastrous Health Education Authority, I suggest that they make a cut in the budget on pornographic sex education and put £1 million into an effective rehabilitation programme, the benefits of which have already been tried and tested at Downview prison, where the results are open for all to see. Could not that programme be extended to all prisons in this country? We have no time to waste. We should get on with the programme as a matter of urgency, and I trust that the Government will give the subject full consideration.

Mr. Tony Banks: This is the worst nightmare that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) could have imagined—I rise to speak in favour of new clause 67, which proposes to decriminalise cannabis possession and use. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say this, but so that Conservative Members, even the most obdurate ones, understand, the proposal is not supported by those on the Front Bench of the official Opposition. It is not Labour party policy to decriminalise cannabis.
I understand that this i s the first opportunity that we have had in about 15 years to decriminalise cannabis rather than just to talk about it. Despite what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said about how scandalous it was that anyone should even presume to urge the decriminalisation of cannabis, there is a debate going on outside the House. That debate involves not only a bunch of 1960s ex-hippies, but judges, senior police officers involved with the drug squad, the head of Interpol, the Surgeon General of the United States of America, The Sunday Telegraph, The Independent, The Times, The Economist, and a number of right-wing radical groups. The issue is not confined, therefore, to one narrow sector of society.
One of my worries was that, despite that debate outside the House, we were not able to debate the matter in the House. All I want to do is promote a debate, so that we can be sure that we are judging the situation as it should be judged—dispassionately, coolly and in the interests of the population.
I enter a personal note.:I have never in my life taken or used illegal substances such as cannabis. I do not know how many Conservative Members can put their hands on their hearts and say that. [Interruption.] I can see three or four raised hands among Conservative Members, so I must assume that at some stage the rest have partaken.
I have done a little bit of homework. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not at the Dispatch Box, because I have been reading about some of his wilder moments at university. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box, put his hand on his heart and say that he has never in his life used cannabis. He might find some difficulty doing that and being honest at the same time.
I am not speaking on behalf of myself or to legalise anything that I have done in the past. That is not a moral point, but something that is worth putting on the record. Much to my regret, the permissive 1960s seem to have passed me by in all respects. I have made up for it in certain areas since then, but this is not one of them.
Between 1.5 million and 5 million of our citizens regularly use cannabis for recreational purposes. My new

clause seeks to create a new category of drug, class D drugs that would, in effect, put cannabis on the same level as alcohol and tobacco. Although it is legal to purchase alcohol and tobacco, we do so under strict conditions. They are not always enforced, but the law exists to enforce them, should we wish. They must be bought from licensed premises, they should not be sold to people under a certain age; there are tax, revenue and quality considerations. My proposal would only put cannabis on the same level as alcohol and nicotine.
If one was being strictly logical, one would consider the health aspects of cannabis, nicotine and alcohol, then legalise cannabis and ban alcohol and nicotine. I have not yet been able to discover anyone who has died from using cannabis, but, every year, tens of thousands of our citizens die from, and suffer from illnesses related to, using alcohol and nicotine. We talk about drugs, but alcohol and nicotine are far more potent drugs than cannabis.
We are not even using language in the correct sense. When we talk about cannabis, we are discussing an illegal substance or drug. When we talk about tobacco and alcohol, we are discussing legal drugs.

Dr. Spink: I hope that the hon. Member will accept that, if tobacco came on to the market now, as a brand new product, no responsible Government would legalise its general use for the public. In that case, why should he now ask for two wrongs to make one right? Surely society should be protected from soft drugs, just as we would wish to protect it from tobacco, if it came on to the market as a new product.

Mr. Banks: That is an interesting point. If we decided in our wisdom and on health grounds—the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are legitimate health grounds—to ban nicotine, we would create a large crime wave which would dwarf anything we had ever seen. Obviously, therefore, we cannot do that.
Cannabis is not as destructive of human health as nicotine. In those circumstances, I cannot accept what the hon. Member said, on two grounds, but he is right in one respect. If Sir Walter Raleigh had just returned with the new product of tobacco, I suspect that we would have banned it. Perhaps we would not even have allowed him to bring in potatoes.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the theory is that, by banning a drug, we protect people from it, could my hon. Friend explain the experience of a large number of my young constituents, who find themselves in no way protected from the possibility of being hooked on the drug and caught in the crime wave that goes with it?

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is correct. Surveys show that a significant cross-section of society use cannabis for recreational purposes. Cannabis features in 90 per cent. of all drug offences. When we talk about drug offences, we are effectively talking about cannabis, and there were 42,000 offenders in 1991.
As well as the debate outside the House, the police, by their actions, are allowing cannabis use. When they pick up people who are carrying a small amount of cannabis that is clearly for personal use, they issue a caution and let them off. That is what is happening. I do not know what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam would say about that, but it is a fact, and the House should recognise that.
People often say—the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said it—that the use of soft drugs is the slippery slope towards the chasm. For some people that may be true, but not for everyone. One could also say that, as soon as someone sips a glass of dry sherry, they are on the slippery slope to drinking meths on the Embankment. I assume that the poor unfortunates who end up hopeless alcoholics started off by drinking a dry sherry, but that does not mean that everyone who has a beer or a glass of sherry ends up a hopeless alcoholic.
In countries where cannabis has been decriminalised, such as Holland, there has been a fall in the number of hard drug users. While I am on the subject of Holland, I must point out that we are in danger of creating drugs tourism in the European Union. If different laws apply in different countries in a union, where the movement of people across national boundaries is that much easier, people who are interested in experimenting with illegal substances will obviously move to the countries where they are more freely available. We should be concerned about drugs tourism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) mentioned the extensive criminal activity that surrounds drug supply and said that it was estimated that 50 per cent. of property crimes are associated with drug supply and demand. The police recognise that, like prostitution, the use of illegal substances is something that they can never stop, whatever resources we give them. They also maintain that we do not give them enough resources to meet the demands that the Government place on them.
The decriminalisation of cannabis will allow control and regulation and that is the way to approach the matter. It would also allow the police to use their resources more effectively in other areas where damage is being done to our citizens. I do not know whether the use of cannabis damages the people who use them or society, but much of the criminal activity surrounding the supply of such substances clearly damages us all.
I am not saying that, because we cannot beat it, we should legislate for it and legalise it. That is like saying that, because we cannot beat house burglary or car crime, we will make them legal. However, why should millions of citizens be criminalised for an activity that, according to the evidence that I have gathered, does not harm them, as the users, or harm others?
When the Home Secretary tried to whip up some grass roots support at the Conservative party conference by saying, "Let's hit them with harder penalties," it was an absurd, but typical, reaction. We are not hitting them and we are not dealing with the problem, so how on earth will stiffer penalties solve the problem? It is not surprising that a range of eminent authorities attacked the Home Secretary's proposals.
If we move from criminalisation to regulation, we can start to treat the drug-dependent—that is somewhat different from using cannabis—as patients rather than as criminals. We can also deal with drug education in a different way. It is difficult to become involved in education about drugs, because drug-taking is an illegal activity. Much HIV infection is passed on via people who use hard drugs, and we are not controlling that.
I am not advocating drug use. I have never used the stuff, nor do I intend to, although I do not object to it. If

someone gave me a hash brownie, I would probably pop it down, but I would not smoke hash because I do not like smoke getting into my lungs. I am not advocating drug use, but decriminalisation would have some tangible benefits. One benefit is that it would allow up to 5 million of our citizens who use cannabis for recreational purposes to be brought within the law, rather than criminalised.

In summary, if the new clause were accepted and placed in the Bill it would: release law enforcement resources; improve police-community relations and, therefore, police effectiveness; all but eliminate revenue-raising crime to fund illegal purchases; enable effective measures to curb the spread of HIV; improve the health of people using drugs; increase the credibility of health education messages; and improve early access to treatment for those developing drug problems.
The legal trade would have tax benefits, which would no doubt appeal to some Conservative Members; would eliminate the excessive illicit profits that generate violence and corruption; and would remove a major spur to the erosion of traditional, legal safeguards.
On all those grounds, at an appropriate stage I shall urge the House to support new clause 7.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), speaking for the Opposition,' directed his comments towards the Home Office and its Ministers. I echo the tenor of many of his comments, but he should have directed them to the Secretary of State for Education rather than to the Home Secretary.
Lack of education—especially the education of young people—is an appalling chink in the Government's activities to tackle the misuse of drugs, and I say so advisedly. It is not that nothing is going on as there is much activity. Such illustrious organisations as TACADE are providing extremely well-designed material and Life Education Centres have marvellous programmes that are directed towards young children. They are doing their stuff and are supported by voluntary agencies.
However, I fear that, all too often, they are left to get on with it. The Government's decision to cut Government funding for health education co-ordinators in education authorities was appalling. As I told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Education Ministers, I hope that they will review that decision, and I am sorry that they are not on the Front Bench for our consideration of new clauses 4 and 5.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who has just left the Chamber, also took an unfair swipe at my hon. Friend the Minister. Home Office initiatives are one of the areas in which Government activities are excellent. A word of warning, however, as their activities are under review. The Department should not undertake a review like that conducted by Ministers for Education—to find out how best to stop excellent initiatives. I hope that it will find out how programmes can be extended to other cities, towns and regions.
Programmes work best where a co-operative venture is already in place, as was the case in Sussex. Brighton had the first drugs initiative and it was able to stitch in with the East Sussex drugs advisory council and all the good work


that it has done. That is an excellent example of what Government funding for a Government initiative can achieve, working with local people.
I must offer some words of warning about the ideas about decriminalisation put forward by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). First, he cited the director general of Interpol in support of his contention, but he was taken out of context, and has been quoted very selectively. I shall be delighted to share with the hon. Member the correspondence that I have received from the director general in recent weeks.
Like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I am a delegate to the Council of Europe. I should remind him that the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs was debated extensively at the Council—I was proud to be the rapporteur for that debate. The recommendation not to legalise drugs was carried unanimously in the Council, which then embraced 26 nations—certainly no fewer—with the support of representatives from all parties of all nations.
The truth of the matter is that the decriminalisation of drugs will not work, and that cannabis has worse effects than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West suggested. It increases the likelihood of lung infection, because it increases the toxic gases in cigarettes, it affects people's brains and, most important of all, it has severe effects on young girls, because it affects their reproductive organs.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rathbone: I will not give way, because I was immensely restrained during the hon. Member's speech, and I know that the House wants to make progress.

Mr. Banks: I would have given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Member seemed to hang his argument on the idea that, as cannabis is only a recreational drug, it should be made legal. Those who take hard nasty drugs such as cocaine and heroin also look upon them as so-called recreational drugs. To hang the arguments about decriminalisation on allowing people to have more legal fun when they are having illegal fun now is a rather sad commentary from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
New clauses 64 and 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) relate to drug treatment in prisons. We do not know how many prisoners misuse drugs. We know that about 45,000 people are in prison, and we know that they are roughly representative of the population. A survey of prisoners in 1989 found that 43 per cent. said that they used drugs regularly outside prison. It is therefore likely that they could be misusing drugs inside prison.
The British Medical Association found that 40 per cent. of women prisoners in Holloway may have problems with drugs—my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about that earlier. The 1991 national prison survey reported that 41 per cent. of prisoners who were questioned said that their first confrontation with police was because of drink or drugs. That relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
Of the cases tried by magistrates in the London area, 80 per cent. involve drink or drugs. That highlights the need for treatment for misuse of drugs and alcohol, and the fact that one should not differentiate between them.
It is extremely difficult to provide such treatment in prisons. Those involved in the work of the Addictive Diseases Trust have said categorically:
Admitting to a drug or alcohol problem in prison can have unpleasant consequences
on release. That is absolutely true, but it is still essential to have the ability to offer that treatment.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, I lift my hat to the Addictive Diseases Trust and to Sir Anthony Hopkins, who is more famous for other things, for his marvellous support of and deep involvement with the trust. I also commend Jonathan Wallace, the trust's director, on getting a unit going in Downview prison.
New clause 64 makes an important reference to "voluntary organisations". The Addictive Diseases Trust believes, based on its experience, that it is essential to establish with inmates that the treatment process is not part of the prison system, and that its staff are not employed directly by the Home Office or the prison service. That is not a criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister or of prison officers, but it means that such treatment must be at arm's length from the Department and the prison service to make it a credible point of contact to which prisoners may turn.
The success of that concept is endorsed by everyone who has had any experience of what has gone on in Downview prison. I know that the prison governor, the area manager and everyone from the Home Office who has visited the prison is behind that concept. They are supportive because they can see the effect on prisoners. It is also important to consider the rollover effect, because, when I visited that prison, it was clear to me—I am sure that the Minister can confirm this—that the treatment was helping not only the prisoners, but their wives and their families to come to grips with their problems outside.
The Addictive Diseases Trust says:
We are in the business of turning liabilities into assets.
I believe that the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam would achieve just that.

Mr. Maclennan: In common with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), I should like briefly to discuss the three sets of amendments and new clauses that have been grouped together.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Government have not shown a co-ordinated appreciation of the serious threat that drugs are posing to society. As the hon. Member for Lewes has said, it is true that the Department for Education is primarily to blame for the recent ending of the role of health education co-ordinators. Earlier today, Ministers—most notably the Foreign Secretary, in his statement to the House—told us about the importance of collective responsibility. I believe that the Departments of Health and for Education and the Home Office should be working closely together to tackle the problem of drugs, which afflicts society.
My main concern about the Home Office is that it is not devoting sufficient resources, research and analysis to the extent of the problem. It is true that anecdotal evidence suggests that many offences can be traced to a criminal seeking to finance his drug-taking habits. The statistical evidence to support that, at least that which is available to the public, is extremely slender. With crime figures rocketing, the time has come for a much more scientific analysis of the relationship of drugs to offending.
New clauses 4 and 5 deal with cognate matters—the imposition of a duty upon local authorities, funded by Home Office grants, to pursue anti-drugs education in partnership with the police and other agencies. New clause 5 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to
publish a national strategy for drug prevention.
That too would focus on education and young people in custody or care.
I sympathise with and support the intention behind the clauses, and they are a useful peg on which to hang the debate, but we must recognise that education on drugs often misses the target. I give full credit to the Home Office for its responsibility for a valuable study which was prepared at Sheffield university by Marian Lightner and others. It showed that drug education was most likely to be effective among those socio-economic groups that were responsive to education generally.
Those who are least responsive to education are, broadly, those most disposed to take harder drugs, and indeed all drugs more frequently. Therefore, although it is important to educate in schools, we cannot regard even an extensive drugs education in schools as sufficient, and we require counselling services and detoxification centres outside schools to catch those who are not caught by what goes on in schools.
Another report, produced for the Department of Health on young people and illicit drug use, researched at Durham university, found that it was commonplace among young 13 to 18-year-olds in some areas to take drugs. Drug use and abuse by children is growing, and growing frighteningly. There must be very few head teachers in the land who can put their hands on their hearts and say that drugs are not being brought into their schools. I do not sense that the urgency of tackling that problem is reflected in Government thinking.
One of the group of amendments has not yet been moved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Perhaps he will forgive me if I mention it even before he has moved it, for there is much to be said for new clause 52, which would require the detention in rehabilitation centres of drug addicts convicted of possession under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
8 pm
It has to recommend it, first, the fact that prisons are not the best places to send people who need to kick the habit of drug-taking. Secondly, detention in a rehabilitation centre might at least prevent reoffending in the same way on release. It is extremely important that drug addicts are given rehabilitation rather than prison sentences, but we have to qualify that view by recognising that such centres do not currently exist extensively around the country.
I think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Tayside, North is almost certainly not capable of implementation on practical grounds, but the thrust of his argument is extremely important. It also has to be recognised that treatment for drug addiction is not always lasting or successful, and that lasting care for ex-addicts is necessary to prevent recidivism. The hon. Gentleman might care to consider that in the context of his thinking about those matters, for follow-up and after-care are

extraordinarily important.
Many addicts who come before the courts do not do so because they are addicts. They are tried for other offences and convicted of other offences, and their addiction comes to light only once they are taken into custody.
With those reservations, I generally support the thrust of new clause 52, but I think that the intentions of the hon. Member for Tayside, North were similar to those expressed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who speaks with some obvious personal interest and knowledge of activities and regimes in certain prisons where drug rehabilitation programmes are being experimented with. I agree with her that it is sensible that those programmes should be tried out by other prisons and by voluntary agencies working in prisons. We need all the help and
The hon. Member for Lewes said that, although we know that drug abuse in prison is high, we cannot accurately quantify it, and certainly not all users come to the attention of the authorities. Measures to restrict the supply of drugs, even in the newest prisons, are never, as far as one can make out, completely successful. Further, a person who is already in prison may not be deterred by an extension of sentence for drug use, so I think that a strategy of drug demand reduction is required.
The treatment of drug dependence among prisoners is an important part of tackling offending behaviour generally, as they are often linked, and the availability of treatment is crucial. I therefore support the thinking of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that lies behind the clause. I shall be interested to see whether she presses it to a Division in the face of the reluctance of the Government to move in the direction that she has in mind.
Many of the arguments which I have adduced in support of her new clause 64 would obtain in respect of new clause 65, as it allows the court to reduce the sentence of an offender where it believes that drug use contributed to the crime and where the offender is willing to go on a rehabilitation course.
I think that that power is unlikely to be frequently used because of the difficulty of proving causation, but its value would lie in the recognition that drugs can lead to crimes that would not otherwise be committed. An addict who receives treatment may be in greater danger of returning to dependence while inside prisons where drugs are more readily available than outside.
The last group of amendments which I wish to mention includes new clause 51, which would alter the sentences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to provide that all offences will be tried on indictment—most can be tried either way at present. Maximum sentences for possession, supply or production would be 50 years for class A, 25 years for class B and 10 years for class C.
Longer sentences are known to contribute little to deterring others or to preventing reoffending. In the United States, minimum sentences and an explosion in the number of convictions have not reduced the incidence of drug crime or addiction. A heavy-handed criminal justice response may even exacerbate the drugs problem by driving users further from other agencies offering rehabilitation, and by increasing the violence associated with drug-dealing.
I am less attracted to that proposal of the hon. Member for Tayside, North. The Government too often instinctively believe that one tackles criminal problems by lengthening sentences. The position of drug addicts and drug users is


quite different from that of drug dealers, who require stiff penalties. Prison is the last place that one would choose to send many addicts.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for opening up in Parliament a debate which is widely being continued outside the House of Commons. He is right to say that it is a serious debate, and it is one in which there have been powerful advocates. Among others, a leader in the Financial Times and a number of very senior doctors have supported the decriminalisation not only of cannabis, but of other drugs.
I do not believe that that can be contemplated at this time by Parliament. I believe that it would run completely counter to widespread public perception, and that Parliament cannot legislate too far in advance of public opinion on an issue of that type. None the less, it is an important issue, and the Government are not approaching the problem of the widespread illegal use of cannabis with any coherence or sense.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has noticed the contrast between the attitude of the Home Office, which has increased the penalty to £2,500 for cannabis-related offences in England, and that of the Scottish Office, which has introduced what it calls a fiscal fine of £25. It seems to me that that reflects what I was speaking about earlier—the lack of coherence in the Government's approach to the handling of the drug problem.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: indicated assent.

Mr. Maclennan: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is agreeing with me. I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman look at Government amendments Nos. 79 and 82, which make exactly the same fine provisions for Scotland?

Mr. Maclennan: I have noticed those amendments, which I suspect were tabled because I and other hon. Members have drawn attention to the oddity of treating the two systems differently. They do not detract from the point that I am making about the use of fiscal fines, which are a measure of Scottish society's attitude to cannabis taking.The police have welcomed the measure, as it will avoid their efforts being diverted towards chasing up relatively minor drug-related crimes, and will enable them to concentrate their stretched resources on hard drugs dealing, which is so much more profitable.
A risk that I have not heard seriously discussed is the fact that, if the penalty for dealing in soft drugs becomes so high that the risk to dealers is unacceptable, dealers may turn to dealing in hard drugs, which are much more profitable. That would be an untoward result of the Government's approach.
I recommend the Scottish Office's approach to the Home Office, which I hope will see fit to follow suit.

Dr. Spink: What decision was taken at the Liberal Democrat party conference with regard to legalising soft drugs?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman refers to a resolution passed at a Scottish conference of the Liberal Democrat party in 1993, which Conservative central office has helpfully furnished to Tory Members, and a copy of which has conveniently come into my hands. That proposal

was passed in Scotland and reflects the fact that the debate about drugs in Scotland is, in some ways, more advanced. It was put forward in the spirit of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I have no intention of voting for his amendment and, as far as I am aware, the Liberal Democrat party has no intention of doing so.
It is not Liberal Democrat policy that cannabis or other illegal drugs should be legalised. I do not suppose that Conservative central office will subsequently circulate my speech, but I should none the less like to put on the record the fact that we have opposed the decriminalisation of cannabis because, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, the health effects are uncertain.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the feared adverse health effects and I have heard similar evidence from other doctors. It is also uncertain whether legitimised cannabis dealing would lead dealers to use that drug to promote other drugs. We have supported the Scottish Office proposal to make first-time offences of possession subject to non-criminal fiscal fines. That approach should be followed south as well as north of the border.
My main message to the Home Office today is that it should get its act together and join the Departments of Health and for Education. Let us pool the talent and concerns and use them constructively to tackle the most serious problem facing this country today, which is a major factor in the rise of crime.

Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to discuss new clauses Nos. 51 and 52. It is unusual to hear other hon. Members discuss new clauses that one has not yet had an opportunity to move.
Like the hon.Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I can say that I have had no association whatever with drugs, even though as a young man I spent some time in the bazaars of the middle east during His Majesty's pleasure. Although I frequently speak about alcohol, particularly Scotch whisky, I am teetotal. Nor do I smoke, but that does not stop me discussing smoking. Like the hon. Gentleman, my interest is to try to find a solution to the ghastly problem facing the United Kingdom and the whole of the civilised world.
8.15 pm
There is no single, simple solution. Anyone who has studied the problem realises that, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) properly said, the problem exists in our schools and any problem in our schools affects every age group in the community. It would therefore be nonsense simply to consider a narrow solution. The value of this debate is that it gives us an opportunity to address the matter in the round.
Deterrence has a part to play in dealing with the problem. I am not naive enough to imagine that it alone is a solution, but I have always believed that penalties deter some people and must therefore be part of the package. After all, given that we are faced with a fivefold increase in fines for drugs possession, we must recognise that present sentences are not enough.
New clause 51 proposes sentences to deal with not just addicts. Although one is concerned with the increase in addicts, the illegal drugs industry generates a turnover of between £2 billion and £2.5 billion per annum. It is a massive industry. Given the amount of money presently being laundered through the financial sector from the illicit


drugs trade, its effect on anyone connected with the trade, whether school boys or girls, adults involved in laundering the money or handling the products, or dealers involved in distribution, must be addressed. It is an international trade. A number of recent incidents in Scotland have revealed evidence that the drugs have been landed in the north-west of Scotland for distribution in the United Kingdom.
Our interest therefore covers much more than simply what is happening in schools, which is why we must consider carefully the sentences available to the courts. It would be far better to use the term "50 years" than the term "life". That would show anyone thinking of offending in this way that he was liable to find himself locked up for 50 years.
I immediately accept that we have to think of ways of weaning addicts off drugs. My first experience of addicts came with people who were addicted to drink—not unusual in Scotland. When I was a boy it was common to see drunks around the city of Dundee after 9.30 pm, because the public houses closed early. One of the factors that got rid of that problem was a more liberal approach to drinking hours in the pubs. It brought about a dramatic change in drinking fashions.
Many youngsters become involved in drugs as a result of peer pressure. That is why we have to rethink sentencing policy, and it is why I tabled new clause 51. I will not go through the new clause in detail—I could speak for two or three hours if I did, and I sense that the mood of the House would be against that. I should like to make it clear that I could not support any attempt to legalise cannabis.
One reason why I oppose legalising drugs came to my attention when my wife and I visited Switzerland, whither I had gone to assess the impact of its more liberal approach to drug offences. I would hate to see here what I saw around the Parliament building in Switzerland: people using needles in public places in the middle of the day. As I told my wife, I could not think of any other country in the civilised world where one could observe people using needles right outside a parliament building.
I defy anyone to walk outside this building in the middle of the afternoon and find someone using needles publicly in the immediate precincts. People were doing this in Switzerland because of the so-called liberal approach. Swiss parliamentarians told me that, following the introduction of the more liberal approach, known addicts converged on the area because they knew that they would be safe from conviction there. Now this may be what some people want, but it does not appeal to me—it is one reason why I find it difficult to accept arguments in favour of legalisation. In this life it is often a good thing to go and observe such experiments to find out whether they work.
Next, I wish to discuss the rehabilitation centres covered by new clause 52. Part of the answer to the problem must be helping those who are part of the problem—the addicts. It is important to give the courts the opportunity to detain anyone convicted under the proposed subsection (5A) for a term—it will be left to the courts' discretion—that will be required to wean people off their drugs. That is only sensible.
I recognise that this cannot be done without some cost to the taxpayer. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland rightly drew attention to the fact that these centres do not yet exist. He will know that in the years before the second world war there were no centres to help people with alcohol problems either; we had to create them, and the industry itself was largely responsible for

paying for them. I should like to think that some of the stiff fines to be imposed on the illegal drug trade, not to mention the repossession of traders' goods and property, will be used to fund the rehabilitation centres.
I would not want anyone to think, just because I have spoken briefly, that my views on deterrence in this matter differ from my views on deterrence in defence or in any other terms. I believe that deterrence has an important part to play in helping to change attitudes and to convince people who might consider getting involved in the trade that the risks of so doing are unacceptably high.

Ms Diane Abbott: I support my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and affirm the strength of feeling among ordinary people in London, the centre of Britain's drugs trade, about the rising tide of drug misuse and drug-related crime. The problem is acute in my constituency.
As leading members of the Labour party have pointed out, a major issue at stake is the number of crimes committed in order to raise money to feed the drug habit. Half recorded property crime is due to people trying to find the money to feed their habit. That concerns ordinary Londoners. Many of the prostitutes on the streets of London and our other great cities are there to pay for their habit. I cannot stress too much the desperation felt by ordinary people trying to bring up their families when they discover that someone in the next-door flat or the upstairs flat in their estates has set up as a drug retailer. The misuse of drugs and drug-related crimes are ruining the lives of ordinary Londoners in places like Hackney.
Crack and cocaine are the newest scourge among hard drug users. On the streets of my constituency I see young men whose lives have been shattered by drug misuse.
Londoners are increasingly worried about the growth in the use of guns in drug-related crime. Guns are being fired off in crowded clubs, yet crimes involving guns are not given the sort of publicity that they deserve—they are all related to drug misuse. Londoners and the people of Hackney want a real war to be waged against drugs, based on a coherent appraisal of the problem.
That is where the Government are failing—failing the people of Hackney, the people of London and the people of Britain. The problem of the rising tide of drug misuse is complex; it is not just about token gestures in respect of fines. For instance, we need to examine foreign policy issues, such as the amount of aid given to certain countries. Small farmers in the Caribbean and the middle east turn to drug production because it is often their only means of earning hard currency for their families.
If the Governments of Britain and the United States were serious about fighting drugs, they would have to look again at aid for third world countries—and at banana production in the Caribbean. If small farmers in Jamaica and the eastern Caribbean are driven out of banana production, they will turn to growing drugs.
We also need to examine bank secrecy laws. It is no good Tory Ministers posing as being concerned about drugs while they continue, judging by their activities in relation to international banking regulation, to support the Bank of England's endeavour to stop effective disclosure laws. It is because of bank secrecy that the drug barons can shovel their money across continents.
As I say, we must also look at our support for third world countries' attempts to fight drugs. In Jamaica and the eastern Caribbean the drug barons have more highly


powered and expensive speed boats than do the coastguards. If this country were serious about fighting drugs, it would be pumping money into Caribbean coastal defences—after all, Caribbean countries provide calling off points for the drug barons.
It is easy enough to see drug dealers on the streets and in council flats. However, the people making money from drugs, the Mr. Bigs, are not visible and are often not touched by the Government.
Hon. Members spoke about treatment and education. Nobody takes drug abuse and drug-related crime more seriously than those who live and work in inner cities. We do not want token gestures by the Government. We want an overall strategy on drugs which takes into account the foreign policy issues that I have raised and education and rehabilitation. Above all, it must take on board the need for a co-ordinated law and order strategy. The environments of too many people are being ruined, too many communities are being harmed and too many children are having their lives destroyed. The Government have failed the country on the drugs issue and the people of Hackney and London want a real war against drugs.

Mr. John Greenway: I should like to make four brief points.
First, I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said about the withdrawal of funding for health education workers. I recently called a meeting in my rural constituency for representatives from the police, the churches, schools and youth workers to discuss how to deal with the growing problem of drug taking by young people and the availability of drugs in our market towns. One of the strongest messages from the meeting was the real concern about the withdrawal of that funding by the Department for Education. I urge the Minister to make sure that the Department for Education is fully aware of the anger and outrage felt by many of our supporters in market towns about the withdrawal of that funding.
Secondly, I should like to respond to the criticism of the Government for increasing the fines for so-called soft drugs. I cannot understand the argument that it is wrong to increase the fines for the possession of amphetamines as well as for the possession of cannabis. We hear a great deal about cannabis, but amphetamines are in the same drugs group. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said about cannabis being the main drug, in his annual report published just a few days ago the chief constable of North Yorkshire said:
There has generally been a decline in the use of cannabis as against the misuse of amphetamines which is strongly increasing.
We have to tackle that head on. When the police arid the customs authorities catch people who are involved in drug trafficking the only offence to which many of them will plead guilty or of which they can be found guilty—given the requirements for evidence—is possession. I warmly welcome the increase in fines and it is reassuring to know that it will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has said, many of the improvements in interdiction have led to drugs seizures in Scotland.
Thirdly, I should like to make a point that has not been made on the legalisation of drugs. The hon. Member for

Newham, North-West made a genuine attempt to introduce that subject to the House. There is high tax on two other poisons—alcohol and tobacco. If we were even to think about trying to control the availability of cannabis through some form of decriminalisation, presumably for health reasons, if for no other, the substance would have to be subject to high tax. That suggests that we could still end up with a black market. I am sure that the House will want to return to the issue again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) tabled new clauses on drugs rehabilitation. In that context, one obvious point has not been made. If, as we all agree, the number of offences being committed in this country, especially petty crimes against property, is by known criminals to fund their habit of drug abuse, it must be right that while such people are in prison they should be rehabilitated. It is the one thing that we could do constructively to reduce the recidivism of people leaving prison.

Mr. Simpson: I support new clauses 4, 5 and 67. In the debate on the previous amendments the Home Secretary warned the House that victim compensation could rise to more than £2 billion by the end of the century. He cautioned that there was a need for radical changes to bring that cost to a more manageable limit. There is an ironic symmetry with the cost of serious drug-related crime. As has been said, £2 billion per year is the estimated cost of crime that is produced by serious drug addiction. That is the fact upon which we should base the debate and the strategies that flow from it.
I have a word of caution in the context of my experience in my area of Nottingham. I praise the police, local authorities, the health authority and the Home Office drug prevention project for their willingness to talk openly about the serious and growing problem of dependency on crack-cocaine. No one should be under any illusions about the seriousness of that drug and the rate at which problems are growing across the country. I shall give one litmus test example. We did a quick survey one weekend and identified 29 children who were involved in child prostitution. Of those 29 children, 25 were crack dependent. They all had various ways of criminally paying for their dependency.
Not only in my area but across the country it is becoming increasingly easy to find stolen goods being priced in rocks rather than in pounds. The problem of crack swept through America and the authorities were poleaxed because they did not face the issue soon enough and were not prepared for the scale of the problem. There are two lessons to be learnt from that. First, the problem must be tackled at source. When asked about how they deal with crack when it has reached the streets, the police say that it is like chasing the wind.
Crack-cocaine must be dealt with by tackling the dealerships and terminating the supply lines. Secondly, we must face the reality that, increasingly, crack—cocaine is being offered to children. If the funding for drugs education work in schools is cut, today's children will not be equipped to deal with the difficult decisions that they will be asked to make in school today and in society tomorrow. That is the stark reality of where we are heading.
We need a programme, a strategy, to address all that and it must begin with some of the initiatives set down by the Home Office drug prevention project. We need to look at


acceptable programmes that will help people while they are still drugs dependent to live with that dependency. Without that we cannot move to the next stage of living without dependency. People do not get conversions on the road as if blinded by a sudden understanding. Hard graft is needed to offer people pathways back to a sane and sensible way of living.
We must tackle the way in which this country is involved on the quiet in bankrolling serious drugs crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, unless we tackle the supply lines of funding through the banking system for hard drugs activities, those activities will continue to grow and thrive. That is not part of the Government's strategy.
As I said, I support new clause 67. Anyone who works with drugs will say that one of the most helpful steps would be to decriminalise cannabis. Those hon. Members who warn about the slippery slope towards serious drug addiction base their arguments on nil evidence. The only serious study which suggested that cannabis was addictive was based on the study of soldiers in the American forces in the Vietnamese war. Many of them pleaded addiction as it was a ground for being sent home. No study has shown that cannabis use leads to dependency on hard drugs. There is no progression except in terms of common supply lines. One of the biggest problems confronting children, young people and adults who use cannabis is that when they try to obtain it they are more likely to be offered a hard drug first. If those supply lines can be separated, there will be an opportunity to break the continuum that brings cannabis users into close and ongoing proximity to hard drug distribution.
The use of cannabis is a pathway not to addiction but to a criminal record. If it were decriminalised, we would immediately remove the unnecessary 42,000 convictions a year for cannabis use and automatically end the fivefold increase in cautions for cannabis use. We would certainly end the number of people who are harassed because of their use of cannabis. Decriminalisation would allow the country to develop a strategy that differentiated between serious drug use and the increasingly socially acceptable use of cannabis.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Everybody agrees on the problem and the extent of it. The question is, what can best be done to solve the problem? I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—probably for the first time—when she says that we need a war against drugs.
Bearing in mind the compulsive nature of drugs and that, for the user, reason goes out of the window, the answer must be, broadly, some stick, some carrot, much less cautioning and certainly no decriminalisation.
As to the stick, the Government are to be congratulated on stiffening sentences for traffickers and on tougher fines for users. I support the Government's action, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in raising fines from £500 to £2,500. To continue to allow fines to devalue is to send totally the wrong signal to children and youngsters and to suggest that the Government do not care. The Government care very much, as should we all, so we should support increased fines. It would also send the wrong signal to the police, who have

been cautioning far too much. One suspects that one reason is that they felt that the Government and the courts did not care to have adequate penalties imposed on cannabis users.
As to the carrot, in addition to better education in schools—I am pleased that the national curriculum now includes drug education as part of health education—

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. and learned Friend is inadvertently misleading the House. Drug education is included in biology, but that is not the sort of health education that co-ordinators were providing for all children in all schools.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: On the contrary, I am told that it is to be included in the national curriculum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that. I agree with his other remarks about Home Office initiatives.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who said that drug users should be given some encouragement. There is not enough drug education or rehabilitation in prisons. We have been going on and on about that for the best part of 20 years. Something more must be done to encourage rehabilitation and education. New clause 62 is in the right direction, although I do not know whether the Government will accept it.
New clause 65 calls for reduced sentencing, which is probably not the best approach, although a reduction in time served through earlier parole or earlier release would be sensible. The trouble with reducing a sentence is that a promise to undertake a drug misuse course cannot be enforced: if users know that a promise of that kind will give them a statutory right to a lesser sentence, they will all make the promise, but few will deliver and the system of justice will be brought into disrepute. The advantage of earlier parole or earlier release is that the carrot would not be given until the offender had delivered his side of the bargain.
Some of the chattering classes may be in favour of decriminalisation, and also some Opposition Members, although it is difficult to know whether the Liberal Democrats are in favour or against, as with so many of their policies. However, few people in society are in favour of decriminalising cannabis, because it would inevitably lead to more youngsters using more drugs. How would the drug habit of which the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington complained be lessened if more youngsters took more drugs?
The ordinary use of cannabis is harmful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pointed out. Dr. Paton of Oxford university records that it may cause irreversible brain damage if used daily for two to three years. Opposition Members who leap up and down may be indicating the very problem that Dr. Paton identified. Cannabis use also leads to the use of hard drugs. The trafficker says to the cannabis user, "It does not give you as much of a buzz as heroin, cocaine or crack. Why not try them?" Whether the use of harder drugs is psychological or medical, the courts are full of cases of people who started on lesser drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines or barbiturates and moved on to hard drugs.
Another objection to decriminalisation is that it would lead to more serious crime. As the number of users and the need to supply even cannabis, amphetamines and barbiturates grew, traffickers would need to supply more.
There would be a greater demand for harder drugs, which would inevitably lead to more trafficking—and more traffickers would lead to more serious crime.
Was the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) serious when he said that an argument for decriminalising cannabis use would be the release of 42,000 people in prison for that offence? If so, that is a good argument for decriminalising burglary. We could solve large-scale crime overnight by decriminalising burglary and releasing the thousands of persons awaiting trial or imprisoned for burglary.
The Government's approach is sensible, but more money must be found for education and rehabilitation. If more money can be found for that, if for nothing else, it would be well justified.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Right hon. and hon. Members share the belief that a terrible and growing problem confronts our country. We have a choice of two paths, one of which we know to be a path of failure.
Over the past 30 years, the approach in America has been the same as that of Conservative Members. America had a war against drugs, spending $8 billion a year over the past 10 years and a similar amount before that. In 1964, 4 per cent. of young Americans were using cannabis. The latest figure shows that 75 per cent. are doing so. There is no evidence to show that illegal use of any drug throughout the world has been reduced by adopting the methods proposed by Conservative Members. Six countries have the death penalty for using cannabis, and 50 have the death penalty for heroin use.
In America, similar arguments were used about the evils of alcohol. Even in this country today, the main cause for crime is alcohol. In 1919, America's answer was to ban alcohol: the consequence was that consumption doubled and the number of people who died from alcohol poisoning quadrupled because a great deal of alcohol was manufactured in unhygienic conditions.
What is the position on drugs now? I speak as someone who hates the use of all drugs. I take none of them, and I suggest that many others should be as antagonistic to the medicinal drugs that we take in huge quantities as they are to illegal drugs. The use of illegal drugs is increasing and our policy on drugs is the main reason why crime is increasing.
If people living in my constituency on one of the estates where there is 40 per cent. unemployment wish to make some money, it is no good going on a useless job scheme as there is little chance of getting a job at the end and it is no good working for McDonald's for peanuts, but if they deal in drugs there will be a good chance of getting themselves a BMW in five years. The problem that drives the drugs trade is money: profit is what is behind the drugs trade.
Drug trafficking is the biggest industry in the world. Drugs are coming into Britain in huge quantities. We are catching at the most possibly 10 per cent. and it could be only 3 per cent. The trade is increasing because people are making huge amounts of money from it. The best way of dealing with it is to undercut the profit and the trade by decriminalising the use of cannabis and making it available in the same way as alcohol is available now, and by treating the users of hard drugs as patients.
We must treat hard drug addicts as patients because there is virtually no chance of getting them off their drugs when they have to steal up to £2,000 of goods a week. If

their habit costs £500 a week, as it does in Bristol, they have to steal that money. They are full-time criminals. Drug addicts take the drugs in unhygienic surroundings and using unhygienic needles. The number of people who die from heroin every year is 100. The number of people who die from using cannabis is zero. The number of people who die from taking paracetamol is 300, from other medicinal drugs 2,000, from alcohol 25,000, and from smoking cigarettes 110,000. Yet as a society we spend £100 million persuading our children to use tobacco but gaol them for using cannabis.
Do Conservative Members know why cannabis was banned? I speak as a chemist. Many substances are far more dangerous than cannabis. I would not encourage anyone to use cannabis or any of the other substances that are available. The reason why cannabis is a banned substance is that the head of a lunatic asylum in Alexandria once went to a conference and said that cannabis made people insane. His reason was that all his in-patients were taking it. He did not mention that everyone outside in the community was taking it as well. Since that day, no one has suggested that cannabis makes people insane.
Several other substances which are freely available could have been banned. The really lethal substances, which I would be horrified if any of my children used, are freely available in chemist's shops, supermarkets and stationery shops. The glues and other substances that they sniff—things that we have in our offices—could kill youngsters. The great worry with cannabis is that it is usually mixed with tobacco. Many members of a generation in the 1960s in Britain and in America used cannabis mixed with tobacco. Now, not one in 100 of that generation still uses cannabis, but a third of them still use tobacco and in many cases it will kill them.
We know what popular opinion is. What Opposition Members are proposing will not gain us any votes. I appeal to the Government. We know that their policy is the wrong one. It will lead to more crime because people will need more money for drugs and they will need to commit more crime to get that money. The Government's policy of increasing the fine for cannabis will result in only one thing: the cannabis user will have to commit more crime to feed his or her addiction. Unless we implement a policy of decriminalisation, undercut the market for cannabis and treat the hard-drug addicts as patients, the problem will get far worse. We shall end up in the position that America is in. Every one of our cities will be divided into areas, with drug users defending their areas with guns. That is the future unless the Government see sense.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: We are all aware that drugs are a serious problem in Britain and especially in the north-east of England. It was said not so long ago that in the north-east drugs were the third largest industry, after Nissan.
In my constituency in the past five years, five young people aged between 16 and 19 have lost their lives through taking drugs. The drugs that they took could be bought in the chemist. Unfortunately for some of them, they were not aware of what drugs they were taking and their effects. They took a cocktail of drugs such as temazepam, barbiturates and heroin. They clogged their systems up, went into a coma and died. It is a shame that the four young girls and one young boy who died were not in the real world. They did not understand what the drugs meant to them, but the pushers did. The pushers were


ordinary people living in the community of Blyth Valley. They were selling to the young kids so that they could get money to buy more drugs to feed their own habit. So there was a chain reaction of drugs in the community.
Unfortunately, Blyth Valley has become one of the biggest drug centres in the north-east. I take my hat off to the local police, who have made 28 raids in the past two or three days. When the police entered the house of one known drug dealer, they found 20 stolen televisions, 14 video recorders and a big swag of jewellery. If that does not tell us anything, what will? The drug dealers get the kids to go out and steal and burgle. Burglaries are on the increase in Blyth Valley. The kids bring the swag and get dope for it. The drugs are not only heroin. Some are from chemists. We must persuade chemists to put drugs under lock and key. We must get a grip on temazepam and wobbly eggs—they all have fancy names—before they get a grip on our people.
I take this opportunity to praise the Newcastle Journal, my regional newspaper, which has agreed to fund a poster campaign in Blyth Valley. It will print the poster for us and I shall distribute it in the area and especially in the schools. We must get across to young people the dangers of drugs. We must talk to them about drugs. It will always be difficult because if we talk to them, we tell them what drugs are. As one headmaster said to me, "What do I do, Ronnie? Do I tell them to take only a little bit of this drug or not to take it with that drug?" The young people who died took a cocktail of drugs. That is the problem. If we educate the kids, they become aware of drugs. Once they are aware of drugs, they will say, "I'll have a bash at it. I'll try a little bit of this or a little bit of that." That is the problem.
We must find the appropriate level and more money must be poured into the system. I do not know whether the new clause will achieve that, but I will support any amendment to the legislation that will help these young kids. Evil drug pushers are getting them hooked on drugs and making a fortune.

Mr. Maclean: I shall reply as briefly as I can to what has been a wide-ranging debate.
I assume that the intention of new clause 64, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), is to place a statutory duty on the Prison Service to provide drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes. There are problems with the drafting, but, in any event, prison governors are already expected to provide a cohesive response to the needs of inmates with drug problems. Guidance on that is contained in a Prison Service circular instruction and in a resource manual issued to all prisons in 1991, entitled "Caring for Drug Misusers: a Multi-disciplinary Resource for People working with Prisoners".
The Prison Service is reviewing that guidance, with the aim of developing an improved strategy for tackling drug misuse in our prisons. In Scotland, various prisons have developed specific programmes to meet the needs of particular groups of prisoners. A guidance manual setting out best practice for the management of prisoners who misuse drugs was issued in March: the aim is to help all prisoners to develop and maintain a drug-free life style. I, therefore, see no advantage in legislating to introduce a duty when the Prison Service is already providing an

appropriate response. We heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone); excellent work is also being done at Downview prison.
9 pm
As for new clause 65, I listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for requiring sentencers to take into account an offender's willingness to participate in a treatment programme when sentencing an offender whose drug habit has contributed to his offending behaviour. I agree whole-heartedly that it is important to deal with criminal activity that is drug related, but I do not believe that the new clause would usefully add to the court's existing powers to deal with such offending behaviour.
The sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires sentences passed by the courts to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence committed by the offender. A custodial sentence may be passed only if an offence is "so serious" that no other sentence is justified; a community penalty may be imposed only if the offence is "serious enough" to merit it. When a court considers that an offence is not "so serious" that only a custodial penalty is justified, but is "serious enough" to merit a community sentence, the court must ensure that the order or orders that it makes are the most suitable for the offender. In doing so, it may take into account any information about the offender that is before it.
Attendance at programmes dealing with, for instance, drug or alcohol dependency may be included in a probation order, either voluntarily—as part of supervision under the order—or as a mandatory requirement of the order. Under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, when a court is proposing to make a probation order and an offender is dependent on drugs or alcohol, the dependency caused or contributed to the commission of the offence and the dependency requires and is susceptible to treatment, the court may include in the order a requirement that the offender submit to treatment by a suitable qualified or experienced person with a view to reducing or eliminating the dependency. A community care assessment or psychiatric report will usually be a prerequisite in such cases.

Lady Olga Maitland: I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. The crunch is this, however: is the Home Office prepared to devote more resources to voluntary agencies such as the Addictive Diseases Trust, which have a proven track record of success?

Mr. Maclean: The Home Office is devoting considerable resources not only to programmes in the Prison Service, but to programmes in the voluntary sector. I shall explain that shortly, when I deal with the Opposition amendments.
Voluntary attendance on a programme may be part of the supervision plan drawn up for a "straight" probation order. The draft revised national standard for pre-sentence reports proposes that when the report writer makes a proposal that envisages a probation order, supervision order or combination order, the report should annex an outline of the supervision plan proposed for the offender to assist the court in its sentencing decision. It should contain a description of the purposes and desired outcome of the proposed sentence; a timetable with key milestones; the


methods to be used and activities to be undertaken; the intensity of supervision envisaged; and the likely effect on dependants.
In the case of an offender with a history of drug misuse, the proposed supervision plan—to which the offender must consent—could therefore include voluntary attendance at a drug rehabilitation programme as an integral part of the plan. The full reasons behind the suggestion must be set out in the main body of the report. In both cases—whether the attendance is voluntary or included in the supervision plan, or mandatory—it is an integral part of the sentence, and forms an element of the restriction of liberty imposed by that sentence.
When an offender subsequently refuses to co-operate with the terms of a probation order, that offender will be regarded as having breached the order, and may be returned to court. In the most serious cases, the court may decide to re-sentence the offender for the original offence, while taking into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the order. Where the breach appears to the court to be a withdrawal of consent to the community penalty a custodial sentence may result. It would, therefore, seem unnecessary to create a new offence to deal with the problem.
Furthermore, I am not convinced that it would be appropriate, as I think my hon. Friend has suggested, that completing a drug rehabilitation programme but failing to be rehabilitated by it should of itself constitute breach of an order. Treatment programmes can achieve excellent results, but there is no guarantee of success in individual cases. Finally, as the courts already possess a discretion to pass sentences that will be particularly suitable for offenders with a drug habit, I am not convinced that the new clause would serve a useful purpose.
I turn now to new clauses 51 and 52, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). My hon. Friend seeks to increase very significantly the penalties for the drug offences dealt with in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go through my hon. Friend's proposals paragraph by paragraph. I merely say that, taken in the context of the sentencing framework as a whole, the current maximum penalties available for drug offences are sufficient to enable the courts to respond effectively and flexibly to the wide range of cases that come before them and to reflect the very different types of offences and offenders. I do not accept that the courts require the additional powers suggested by my hon. Friend.
Similarly, I cannot agree that it would be appropriate for most drug offences, including, for example, the cultivation of a cannabis plant, to be triable on indictment only. I share my hon. Friend's concerns about drug offences and the need to take them seriously. However, I believe that the current arrangements are satisfactory and give courts the freedom to pass appropriate sentences in all cases, including the power to pass tough sentences in most cases. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will agree not to press his new clauses.

Mr. Bill Walker: Would my hon. Friend care to put on the record the Government's view of deterrence?

Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly do so. I take the view that all sentences should contain an element of punishment,

an element of deterrence and an element of rehabilitation. That is the only means of having sentences that are just in the round.
As for the Opposition's new clauses 4 and 5, drugs education and drugs prevention are important and well-established elements of the Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse. They must, however, be integrated with the other elements of our strategy, which, apart from providing adequate treatment services, allow for vigorous enforcement action against drug traffickers and provide the courts with high maximum penalties to deter drug traffickers and dealers.
The co-operation between local authorities, police and other agencies and communities to which new clause 4 refers is already an increasingly common feature of local initiatives to tackle drug misuse. Clearly, the local authority needs to get together with all other local agencies with an interest in drugs prevention to agree a combined strategy. But local response to drugs problems must take account of local circumstances. A multi-agency programme needs, therefore, to be responsive to changing needs and patterns. The right approach, I suggest, is through a proper blend of encouragement and guidance, not through the creation of additional statutory duties for a single agency.
The Government's strategic framework for tackling drug misuse has been in place since the mid-1980s. It involves simultaneous action on a number of fronts, which, in view of the Opposition's criticism that there is no coherent strategy, I shall lay before the House. We do have a coherent strategy, of which educating our children on the dangers of drugs misuse is a vital element. The national curriculum requires schools to teach aspects of health education, including aspects of drug misuse.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As I have pointed out, five young people in my constituency have lost their lives in the past two years. What is the Minister's policy to prevent such deaths?

Mr. Maclean: I resent the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Of course we are appalled at any loss of life resulting from drug misuse. It is very clear that, without the comprehensive, coherent strategy that we have had for the past few years—without all the efforts to crack down on drugs coming into the country and on misuse in the country and to educate youngsters in the avoidance of drugs—the hon. Gentleman would not be holding up just five fingers. Indeed, the number of deaths would be so much greater that he would need to hold up five fingers a hundred times over.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Maclean: No, I shall not give way now because the House wants to make progress. I shall give way in a moment.
The Government are committed to ensuring, through the national curriculum and in other ways, that schools continue to equip young people with the knowledge, skills and attitude that they need to promote their immediate and long-term good health. Education has been backed by anti-drugs publicity. Since 1985, the Department of Health has spent increasing amounts on national drug prevention, information and public education campaigns. In 1993–94,


some £5 million has been spent and independent evaluation has shown that the campaigns have succeeded in raising awareness of the problem.
There have also been innovative developments in drug prevention. The drugs prevention initiative was launched in 1989 as a partnership between Government and the community to promote the prevention of drug misuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes paid tribute to it. Teams are now operating in 20 locations to mobilise local communities to stop young people and others at risk taking drugs and help them realise the harmful consequences. Many successful schemes are in place and the initiative has been involved in the funding of more than 900 projects.

Mr. Flynn: If the programme has been so successful, why is it that, after 15 years of this policy, there is illegal drug use in 90 per cent. of our prisons? If we cannot keep drug misuse out of our prisons, how can we hope to keep it out of our schools, pubs and clubs if we continue with the Government's crazy policies?

Mr. Maclean: Drug use is endemic in western Europe and the United States. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will support the proposals in the Bill to stop drug misuse in prisons through the searching of prisoners and proper drug testing in prisons. I shall welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for that policy, but that is only one plank of our policy to deal with all aspects of drug misuse.
The collective experience of the work of the 20 drug prevention initiative teams in local communities is being pulled together and co-ordinated. It will provide valuable information about the approaches that can be effective in drugs prevention and about the factors that influence their effectiveness, on which we shall base future action. In addition to all those measures for reducing the demand for drugs, we are putting considerable effort into reducing the supply and demand through effective enforcement action.
Police and customs continue to work hard to reduce the supply of drugs coming into the country, with notable success. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pronounced on many seizures at the beginning of his speech. He referred to the success of customs and the police under this Government in tracking down illegal drugs entering the country. We have made tough penalties available to the courts for use against drug traffickers, including up to life imprisonment for dealing in drugs such as heroin and cocaine. The United Kingdom's laws for getting at the profits of the big guys behind drug smuggling are among the toughest in the world. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) will welcome that.
The legislation that we introduced in 1986 enables the courts to deprive drug traffickers of their ill-gotten gains and makes the laundering of drugs money a criminal offence. The legislation has been strengthened by the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and, by the end of the 1992, we estimated that we had confiscated more than £42 million of drug traffickers' proceeds. All those factors come together in a comprehensive anti-drugs strategy involving Departments spending more than £500 million a year in the war against drugs.
We recognise the need, however, to review the strategy and to ensure that the policies that we are pursuing are correctly identified and are co-ordinated effectively. To

that end, we have announced the establishment of a central drugs co-ordination unit. One of the unit's main tasks is to work closely with Departments to ensure that drugs policies are planned, developed and implemented within a clear strategic framework.
The unit's immediate task is to review our strategy on drugs and make recommendations for its continuing improvement. It will certainly not hesitate to say if it believes that greater attention needs to be paid to drugs education and prevention. A statement of our strategy will be published in due course. It will cover all drug policies, not just drug prevention, and will present a comprehensive and co-ordinated response to the problem. It will start by building on our successes—our successes in the drug prevention initiative, our successes in the safer cities programme, our successes in education, our successes in the work of the police in cracking down on illegal misuse, our successes based on Customs and Excise seizures, and our successes with other initiatives, such as that in King's Cross, mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, all of which are happening in the police force under the tenure of the Government.
9.15 pm
Finally, I shall say a few words about the proposal of the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) to decriminalise the supply of cannabis. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I will not go into detail about the proposal that he has laid before the House, as many of my hon. Friends have effectively demolished it. The Government have no intention of legalising or decriminalising any currently banned drug and we believe that we have overwhelming public support for that view.

Mr. Tony Banks: I understand that the Minister will not address the arguments, but will he give one assurance to the House—that he has never used cannabis in any form at all? Will he ask the Home Secretary to give that pledge also?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If we are talking about personal use, I can give him that assurance. I have never used it in my life and I can assure him that I did not try it or inhale it. I have never tried it—[Interruption.] I shall tell him why. It was mainly because I thought that some of people whom I saw using it at university were pretty inadequate, weedy souls. [Interruption.] Those of us who participated in the Territorial Army were not, and we are better for it.
A recent survey of drugs usage and attitudes to drugs of a sample of more than 4,000 people in four cities confirmed that most—66 per cent.—believe that all drugs currently prohibited should remain illegal and less than 8 per cent. thought that some drugs, such as cannabis, should not be controlled. In a recent radio interview, the Commissioner of the Mepropolitan police, Paul Ckndon, was also against the legalisation of cannabis. It is against every international conference and rule on drugs that the United Kingdom and the United Nations have signed.
I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West at one point complained that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was appealing to the grass roots. I do not think that he realised what he was suggesting. My right hon. and learned Friend is not appealing to the grass roots in increasing the penalties for class B and class C drugs. He is appealing to plain, simple common sense. Decriminalising drugs is a defeatist step. It


sends the wrong message to society, especially to the young, that some drugs are not harmful. That is dangerous. It has no place in our thinking and I reject the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Michael: That was not so much a speech as a self-indulgent rant and it did not do justice to the debate or to the subject. The police, local authorities, customs and many others are trying to develop coherent policies for the problem of the scourge of drugs and drug-related crime and only the Government are incoherent in undermining the very prevention the Minister has purported to advocate. It was a sad and unhelpful response. British society, individuals, families and communities cannot afford the Government's short-sighted and self-indulgent response.
It is a disappointment that the Minister has failed to accept our constructive proposals to tackle drugs and drug-related crime. From the Minister's complacent response, it is clear that he will not accept our new clauses. He will clearly not act. In view of the importance of other debates tonight and of other debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which, in many ways, will touch on the same topics to which we shall want to return, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

BODY TO INVESTIGATE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

'(1) The Secretary of State shall within one month of the date of Royal Assent of this Act lay before both Houses of Parliament a report describing what plans he has to set up an independent body to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the timetable within which he proposes to do so.

(2) The White Paper referred to in subsection (1) above shall describe the Secretary of State's intentions in respect to the following:—

(a) the membership of and method of appointment to the body;
(b) the numbers and functions of the employed staff of the body;
(c) the powers of the staff and members of the body and those of the body itself;
(d) the provision of legal aid for those alleging that they are the victim of a miscarriage of justice;
(e) the method and criteria by which the body will select cases for investigation;
(f) the method and criteria by which cases and issues of law will be referred to the Court of Appeal and the relationship between the two bodies;
(g) the extent to which the body should disclose documents and the results of its investigations to the alleged victim of the miscarriage of justice; and
(h) the extent to which the body will employ its own staff or will use others for the investigations.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may discuss new clause 7—Miscarriages of justice (No.1)—
'The Secretary of State shall, within one month of Royal Assent, publish a report setting out his proposals for the establishment of a body to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice in the light of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.'.—

Mr. Mullin: This is the third occasion on which I have tabled a new clause to establish an independent review tribunal to examine alleged miscarriages of justice. On 16

June 1988, Sir John Farr, the former Member of Parliament for Harborough, and I tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would have established such a tribunal. I recall that my speech on that occasion attracted some derision, not least from the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, but who was then a Minister at the Home Office, and the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who now presides over the education of our children, but who was at that time the Minister in charge of locking up innocent people.
What attracted derision in particular was my assertion, which is still controversial in some circles, that innocent people had been convicted of the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford and Woolwich bombings and the Birmingham bombings. It is a matter of record that, today, all 18 of those to whom I referred on 16 June 1988 have had their convictions quashed and are walking the streets with compensation in their pockets.
In July 1990, prompted by the collapse of the Guildford and Woolwich cases, Sir John Farr and I tabled an amendment to the Courts and Legal Services Bill along the lines of the new clause today. It was opposed on the Government's behalf by the then Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), who professed himself satisfied with the present procedures. In particular, he expressed the view that the powers of the Court of Appeal were adequate to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice.
Much water has passed under the bridge since then. Besides the collapse of all the main terrorist cases of the mid-1970s, to which I have already referred, there has been a long series of other cases in which convictions have had to be quashed after evidence given at trial by police officers, forensic scientists and others was found to be mistaken, false or doctored. There have also been cases in which vital evidence has been deliberately suppressed, not only by police officers, but by senior lawyers acting on behalf of the Crown, one or two of whom have gone on to high judicial office.
Twenty-three people have so far had their convictions quashed following the discovery that the West Midlands serious crimes squad had been systematically forging confessions over a long period, although not one of the officers involved in any of those cases has been charged, let alone convicted of a criminal offence. The three men convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock at Broadwater Farm have had their convictions quashed, as have two young women, the Taylor sisters, who were convicted of a murder with which, from the outset, it never seemed likely that they had anything to do. Among the saddest cases was that of Stefan Kiszko, whose conviction was quashed in February 1992 after he had spent 16 years in prison for an offense that scientific evidence available at the time proved that he could not have committed. Tragically, Mr. Kiszko died earlier this year.
I make no complaint about the fact that our legal system makes mistakes; that is inevitable under any system of justice. What I complain about is that we lack a mechanism for facing up to mistakes even when it becomes obvious to sensible people of all political persuasions that something is seriously wrong. In most of the cases to which I have referred, a gargantuan effort was required to persuade our criminal justice system to own up to what had gone wrong. It involved years of campaigning by the victims


themselves, by their relatives, by journalists and broadcasters and, occasionally, by that rare animal, a lawyer prepared to work without payment.
Such campaigns have often had to be waged in the teeth of bitter abuse in the Murdoch press and elsewhere, some of it, in the past at least, orchestrated by Ministers. In the Guildford and Woolwich cases, it was only when faced with representations over a long period by a delegation comprising two former Home Secretaries, two Law Lords, the broadcaster Mr. Robert Kee and Cardinal Basil Hume that the Home Secretary of the day was persuaded to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. To begin with, even representations from that distinguished body, to which I pay tribute, were insufficient to move the hard hearts in the Home Office.
Miscarriages of justice have many victims. First, they destroy or seriously damage the lives of those unjustly sentenced and the lives of their families. Secondly, the long campaigns that have to be waged to put right such miscarriages are distressing for the families of the victims of the crimes for which innocent people are sentenced. They have to see the gory details constantly raked over in public. Thirdly, a miscarriage of justice often means that the real criminal is still at large and free to commit other offences Finally, the criminal justice system is brought into disrepute by the stubborn refusal of those who preside over it to face up to realities that are often obvious to those of us who are not Home Office Ministers or Appeal Court judges.
Who can deny that the events of the past few years have brought the British criminal justice system into discredit around the world? The new clause is intended, in part at least, to remedy that position. I should have preferred it to have required the Home Secretary to amend the Bill, but I am advised that it can be in order only in the form that it appears on the amendment paper; therefore, it requires the Home Secretary to present detailed plans within a month of the Bill's enactment.
I note that the Home Office chose last Friday, after months of inactivity, to publish a discussion paper inviting comments on the proposed new review body. I welcome its appearance—belated though it is—although I cannot help wondering whether the timing has more to do with providing the Home Secretary with something to say in the debate this evening than with genuinely facing up to a problem that has been in his in-tray since the day he took office. The fact that, when I inquired this morning, it was not available even in the Vote Office—although I have now received a copy—suggests that this could be little more than a cosmetic exercise. I see that the Home Secretary is shaking his head. I hope that I am wrong.
I shall comment briefly on what should be the main features of an independent review tribunal. First, it must be composed of persons of an inquiring frame of mind, preferably with a track record of scepticism towards the official version of events. Secondly, while it will of course need to contain some persons with legal training, it should not be dominated by lawyers since, with honourable exceptions, this is a subject where lawyers have traditionally been part of the problem rather than the solution. Thirdly, the tribunal must have powers to summon persons and papers and to conduct its own investigation. Fourthly, it must not be dependent on

officers of one police force to investigate the alleged misdemeanours of another. It is essential that it has its own dedicated force of investigators or the powers and resources to commission such a force.
Fifthly, the tribunal should be able, if it wishes, to recommend to the Court of Appeal that a conviction be quashed. It is not good enough simply to pass on new material without comment, which I gather is what is presently envisaged. Although the Court of Appeal has to a considerable extent cleaned up its act in recent years, history records that the legendary stubbornness of its judges has prolonged many celebrated scandals in the past 15 years. Sixthly, the tribunal should conduct itself with a sense of urgency and not at the leisurely pace with which the C3 department of the Home Office currently proceeds, bearing in mind the fact that it deals with people who may already have spent many years in prison for offences of which they are innocent. Seventhly, the tribunal should apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where many alleged miscarriages of justice have occurred. Finally, if the tribunal is to be credible, it will not be good enough simply to transfer to some outside agency the functions of the C3 department.
In 1982, the distinguished solicitor Sir David Napley told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he was unable to recall
a single case where the Home Office has, as a result of its own investigations, felt able to recommend a pardon or any other recognition that a conviction was necessarily wrongful.
There may have been one or two exceptions since, but the same is broadly true today. It is a depressing fact that the C3 department generally sees its role as merely poking holes in evidence submitted by others. By way of example, one need look no further than the way in which it has mishandled the Carl Bridgewater case. It is obvious to all sensible people that the case against the four men convicted of that crime has now collapsed. There have been six police inquiries and still amateurs continue to turn up evidence that the police have failed to find or have wilfully misinterpreted. A mountain of new evidence has emerged. The foreman of the jury has called for the case to be reopened. Even an expert, Dr. E.W. Shepherd, commissioned by the Home Office to rebut the assertions made by other experts on behalf of the defendants, has come down on their side.
9.30 pm
On 14 January this year, Dr. Shepherd wrote as follows to the Home Secretary:
For my part I still have faith that you will choose to act … expeditiously given the gravity of the issues involved and the threat posed to public confidence in the criminal justice system and in the commitment of the police service to act with integrity. I look forward to early confirmation that this faith is well-founded.
Since then, Dr. Shepherd has heard nothing from the Home Office except a bland letter of acknowledgement. I cannot stress too strongly that he was an expert employed by police officers acting on behalf of the Home Office to examine the case. That shows how difficult it is to persuade the C3 department to take action.
The recent discussion document issued by the Home Office contains some ominous references to the Police Complaints Authority as a possible model for how the new body should operate. The only lesson to be learnt from the Police Complaints Authority is what not to do. I mean no disrespect to many of the honourable people who work for it and I suspect that some of them would agree with my


view. It is a powerless, timorous and generally useless body. What is more, even when it has recommended action, its advice has usually been ignored by the Crown Prosecution Service and others in authority. Most solicitors of my acquaintance would not touch the PCA with a barge pole. If the proposed independent review tribunal is to be modelled on it, we might as well all go home.
The tribunal that I envisage must be properly funded and empowered—above all, it must consist of men and women possessed of steely determination, bearing in mind the fact that they will have to confront some of the mightiest vested interests in the land. Talking of which, what has become of Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich case? The House may be surprised to hear that the Scott inquiry is not the only judicial inquiry proceeding at present. Sir John May's inquiry was set up in the autumn of 1989—four and a half years ago—in the wake of the collapse of the case against those convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.
Sir John got off to a promising start, with public inquiries into the subsidiary, but related issue—the conviction of Mrs. Annie Maguire and her family—and then he went underground and nothing has been heard from him since. He is said to be interviewing witnesses in private. I understand that some of the principal officials involved have declined to answer his questions and that some of his old chums in the judiciary are no longer on speaking terms with him because he is thought to have pursued the first part of his inquiry a mite too rigorously.
I mention that inquiry only to raise a wider point. If a judicial inquiry that is set up by the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General in an atmosphere of urgency can be derailed in that way, we should be under no illusions about the fate that awaits an independent review tribunal that is not properly empowered and resourced.
The idea has been around for a long time. It was first suggested by Lord Devlin in the mid-1970s. It was recommended in a unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs as long ago as 1982. It was so uncontroversial that it attracted the support of even the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner). It was recommended by the Government's own Royal Commission on criminal justice, which reported in July last year. It is preposterous for the Home Secretary to claim that he has had insufficient time to consult. He has had a lot longer to reflect on that issue than on many of the other more controversial issues in the Bill. That is why tonight I and my colleagues will press new clause 6 to a Division. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said. He has an unenviable and wonderful record. It is unenviable because of the work that has gone into it, but wonderful because of his efforts to fight and to expose miscarriages of justice, principally the wrongful imprisonment of the Birmingham Six.
The House should listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say because I can recall dozens of occasions on which Home Secretaries and Home Office Ministers informed the House at the Dispatch Box, with absolute certainty, that the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Tottenham Three, Judith Ward and so on were guilty. They should be a little more cautious and be prepared to look into other evidence.
Miscarriages of justice give rise to three enormous problems: the innocent are imprisoned; their families suffer and the abuse that they suffer is as bad as being in prison: and the guilty go free.
The work that has been done to expose such miscarriages of justice is important. Hon. Members would do well to read the books written by the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six and to see the film, "In the Name of the Father", which shows what really happens when there is a serious miscarriage of justice.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) seems to find this extremely amusing, but if someone is imprisoned for one third or half of their lives for an offence that he or she did not commit and receives nothing but abuse while trying to get justice, the hon. and learned Member should remember that, as elected Members of Parliament, our job is to act as a check on the Executive and to be prepared to speak up for causes that are often very unpopular. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has bravely done so often.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the theme of the film "In the Name of the Father" is that the prosecution deliberately hid the fact that it had a witness to the alibi of the accused, Gerry Conlon, who was not present at the crime? That theme was completely concocted and has no relevance to the facts of the case or to the reason why the appeal was upheld.

Mr. Corbyn: The film that the hon. and learned Member is leading us to discuss emphasises what happens when a miscarriage of justice takes place. It is not a book or a record of every detail. It contains inaccuracies and everyone is prepared to admit that.

Mr. Mullin: I do not wish to discuss the film, except to say that the facts of the Guildford case are far worse than it makes out. The Court of Appeal released the Guildford Four because early drafts of forged confessions were found in regard to Patrick Armstrong. Since confessions account for the entire case against them, they were released.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He and other hon. Members are trying to stress the fact that all those miscarriages of justice exposed a method of preventing defence counsel from getting rightful access to information that could have prevented prosecution in the first place. That is a common thread, as is the thread of confessional evidence that is used to obtain conviction.
When one talks to people who have confessed to commiting a crime that they could not have committed and to being somewhere that they were not, one begins to realise what is happening in police stations and prisons throughout the country and what has led to those dreadful miscarriages of justice.
The cases that I listed received enormous publicity. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton is not prepared to watch a film—I understand that he is a busy man, with many commitments in the courts and elsewhere—he may care to find time to read a book—perhaps those written by Hugh Callaghan and Paul Hill. Some very good books have been written by people who suffered in prison for years and he might benefit from spending a few hours reading them.
I recognise that we are dealing with only one part of a very comprehensive piece of legislation. I echo what my


hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said about promised inquiries. I accept that we have had the May inquiry, a royal commission and other examinations of the issues. We had, coincidentally, a statement on Friday about a review process to enable people to gain access to the Court of Appeal. That is long overdue.
The cases that I have mentioned gained a great deal of publicity because of the dedication of the families and the supporters of those who had been wrongfully convicted and their preparedness to campaign on the issue. Many other people, however, who are in prison may have an equally strong claim to be victims of miscarriages of justice. The problem is that there is no one to campaign for them. They have no access to legal aid to get their cases brought forward. It is a matter of chance whether their cases are picked up by someone who is willing to give up the time necessary to ensure that those cases are heard in the Court of Appeal. That problem is at the core of the argument for some access to that court. It is not good enough to rely, hit or miss, on who happens to pick up a case. The campaign for the release of the Birmingham Six started with no money and just four people at a meeting. After a few years, however, that had developed into a magnificent campaign, which went far wider than just the release of those innocent men from prison on that important day.
I could mention many cases, but I shall restrict myself to one, which is well known to the Home Secretary. A delegation has met the Minister of State, Home Office to discuss the Bridgewater Three. The Home Secretary is aware of a request that he should refer that case to the Court of Appeal, because fresh evidence has been submitted to him to suggest that the three men who remain in prison—the fourth tragically died in prison—did not and could not have committed the awful atrocity of the murder of Carl Bridgewater. No one is trying to minimise the appalling crime of that terrible death, but it does nothing for Carl's memory or for his family if the wrong people are in prison. We want justice to be seen to be done, which means, first, that those men should be released.
New evidence has been submitted to the Home Secretary concerning in particular the case of Pat Molloy, one of those convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater. The detailed evidence submitted to the Home Secretary reveals that Molloy was not the author of the confession, which he supposedly gave, as the police claimed at the trial. An investigation carried out, on commission, by a leading forensic psychologist, Dr. Eric Shepherd, agrees with the defence experts' reports. The alleged confession was obtained by the late detective constable John Perkins, who Pat Molloy said broke his teeth. Other evidence has been submitted about the way in which Molloy was treated and the manner in which he eventually made his confession, which resulted in his conviction and imprisonment and three others.
The Home Secretary is well aware of the evidence. A thorough inquiry has already been held about it and delegations have visited the Home Office. Two books have been written on the case, and that by Paul Foot has been published in a revised edition. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that those in prison for the murder of Carl Bridgewater did not carry out and could not have carried out that crime.
It should not be in the gift of the Home Secretary to decide whether the enormous weight of evidence, which I believe is in favour of those in prison now, should be given the right to be heard in open court. That is the kernel of our argument. Those people should have a right of access to the Court of Appeal in any event.
The Bridgewater case is one of several hundred cases being considered by the Home Office officials. The process of reconsidering evidence is not new, but we want that evidence to be considered in the open. We want equal and real access to justice to be given to all people who believe that they have been wrongfully convicted. That is the basis of our argument and the basis of the argument of those who have served prison sentences.
I urge the Home Secretary, if he has the time, to look at a number of books written by the victims of miscarriages of justice in this country. He must appreciate that he has a responsibility as Home Secretary to ensure that real justice is available to all people, irrespective of who campaigns for them or the resources at their disposal. At the moment there is no access to legal aid for those who believe they have been wrongfully convicted. There are few lawyers who are prepared to work for nothing and a limited number of people who are prepared to endure the kind of subterranean media abuse that is heaped on those who campaign against miscarriages of justice. For those reasons, many cases are simply not heard. We need real access to justice. That is the synthesis of what we are arguing for in new clause 6, and I look forward to its support. Above all, I look forward to the day when we can say that everyone has real access to the courts.

9.45

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I need to detain the House for only a moment, but I thought it appropriate that a Conservative Member should be identified with new clause 6. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) not only on putting the case very clearly, as he did back in 1990, but, I thought, on making all the major arguments.
It is a pleasure to follow Lord Devlin, 18 years ago, and my Conservative colleagues on the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1981–82. The key point I found, reading through that sixth report, was in paragraph 11. The Committee reached the following conclusion:
All our witnesses, apart from the Home Office themselves, felt that some opportunity for independent review would both add to the quality of the advice given to the Home Secretary and at the same time help to persuade petitioners and the public that each case had been given full and fair consideration.
I suggest that that is the kernel of the case that is being made tonight.
I draw to the attention of the House another brief quotation from the report. In paragraph 10, the Committee says:
Both Justice and the Criminal Bar Association suggested that the chances of a petition ultimately being 'successful' might sometimes depend less on its intrinsic merits than on the amount of external support and publicity that it was able to attract.
I think that that is true. That should worry us, too.
I believe that, since Lord Devlin set to work, the climate of public concern about miscarriages of justice has greatly altered. I shall not rehearse the details of the Birmingham and Guildford cases. I think that it is now the talk in the pubs and clubs of our country; it is not a rarefied matter simply for lawyers and Home Office officials.
I believe that the onus is on the Home Secretary, if he does not wish to support new clause 6, to say what he will do instead, because there is a genuine problem. I do not believe that the status quo is acceptable to another decade. I therefore hope that the House will, after due deliberation, support this important new clause.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the eloquent case made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who, as has been observed, has a distinguished and deserved reputation for his tenacity in seeing through some especially unpopular, but ultimately, no doubt—from his personal point of view—satisfying, campaigns to resolve substantial miscarriages of justice.
As the House will have observed, new clause 6 embraces not only England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but Scotland. It is sometimes thought, especially by lawyers in Scotland, that our system is immune from miscarriages of justice of the type that has been mentioned. However, the cases of Preece and of Meehan, to which reference was recently made when we debated capital punishment, are eloquent testimony to the fact that miscarriages of justice can occur in any of the legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. For that reason, the clause as currently framed refers to Scotland as well.
There is nothing wrong in the law reacting to a disturbing series of cases. What could be more disturbing than the series of cases to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred? Although I do not propose to rehearse them, it is worth pointing out from an historical point of view that a case that was equally celebrated in its time—that of Oscar Slater in Scotland—forced the legislature to introduce into that jurisdiction a right of appeal in cases where guilt had been determined by a jury. Recent history makes the clause not so much desirable as essential in order to establish public confidence in the judicial system.
No matter how the powers of the appellate courts are drawn, the existing machinery will inevitably be inadequate to get to the truth of some cases. That is particularly so in a system that leaves the determination of fact at first instance to juries, because appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with conclusions that juries have reached.
In general, that must be correct, but in cases like those of which we have heard this evening, the appellate courts' restrictive powers are inadequate to get at the truth of issues raised by allegations of miscarriage of justice. It is also important to remember that appellate courts deal with an adversarial system and are bound by the rules of evidence as they apply in the jurisdictions for which they are responsible.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs was remarkably prescient in the report to which reference has already been made. One cannot help but think that, had the terms of that report been speedily implemented, some of the events of the past 12, 13 or 14 years might have been avoided, to the advantage of our judicial system.
One need not be seduced by film reconstructions of previous cases, because the real evidence is as compelling as any that might be required. Mistakes occur in the legal system. No one can prosecute or defend over a period without being aware that he or she has made a mistake in the course of presenting a case. No judge can sit over an

extended period without being aware that he or she has made a mistake in determining a case. Lawyers must acknowledge the fallibility of the legal system.
On that footing, I have little hesitation in commending the new clause to the House.

Mr. Gunnell: I shall not delay the House for long because, as other hon. Members have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has set out clearly what is needed with regard to a criminal cases review authority. We all await the Home Secretary's reply. Although I welcome the fact that he has published something, I was disappointed that the document had no time scale attached to it—apart from that related to the consultation process—because the matter is urgent.
My disappointment was accentuated by the fact that it was clear from the Home Secretary's comments in the debate on capital punishment that he takes miscarriages of justice seriously. He used the West Yorkshire case of Stefan Kiszko in a telling way when presenting his reasons for changing his position on capital punishment. He is clearly concerned that the issue of miscarriages of justice is extremely serious.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The Carl Bridgewater case has been in the public domain for a long time, and significant new evidence has arisen. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that potential miscarriage of justice equally seriously. Those three men have been in prison for a long time. The case therefore needs to come before the Court of Appeal as rapidly as possible. Even if the Home Secretary judges that it should go back, there will still be a considerable delay before those people can be released.
Such factors underline the urgency of the problem. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us this evening what timetable he has in mind. We were disappointed that such a review body was not included in the Bill—

Ms Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that another factor contributing to the urgency that the Home Secretary should feel is the fact that, because people who are the victims of miscarriages of justice continue to claim their innocence while in prison, they are ineligible for parole? That means, ludicrously, that the innocent serve longer sentences than the guilty.

Mr. Gunnell: I entirely agree—that is indeed an anomaly.
The son of two constituents of mine, Alan Dodson, who is in Full Sutton prison, was convicted in 1987 of the murder of his fiancee in 1986. From the moment of his arrest and first interview, he has always maintained his innocence. Division 3C of the Home Office entertains some worries about that, because of the representations about it that have been made to the Home Office. It has asked me for any helpful information that I might be able to provide. That goes to show the difficulty of making any progress on the case.
The original request for an appeal came from my predecessor, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and was turned down on the ground that there was no new evidence. At the time, that seemed a fair decision, but in some cases it is, by definition, extremely hard to come up with new evidence—when a murder is alleged to have been committed by a person acting alone, and when the police have formed a conclusion from the outset about who the guilty person


was. That can mean that the police do not properly investigate other possible leads. It is thus extremely difficult to produce further evidence.
Sometimes one cannot even procure a copy of the judge's summing-up. That applies in this case; no such copy exists, because the transcript has never been translated from the shorthand. Indeed, some of the shorthand notes of the six days of the trial that preceded the judge's summing up have been lost and can therefore never be recovered. It is clearly impossible to obtain a complete picture of the trial.
To obtain a copy of the summing up, a Member of Parliament would have to find £600—and I am told that we cannot ask for that to be done at public expense, or even pay for it out of our office expenses, if we are prepared to do so. It is hard to make progress without the summing-up by the judge in such a case.
The police seem to have formed a single-minded judgment. It seems that the defence may not have been conducted in a way that was helpful to the person in question. All this shows why many people are concerned about a delay in the appearance of a criminal cases review authority on the statute book.
We are also worried that the Bill will increase the potential for miscarriages of justice. For instance, we regret the way in which the right to silence has been dealt with, but that is a subject for another debate. We also regret the rejection of the many constructive Opposition amendments that sought to restrict the time at which that might take effect to formal situations. That would have meant that people could not be held responsible for everything that happened from the moment they were spoken to on the street, in the police car or at the station without a solicitor being present. Such safeguards should be in place if we are to avoid further miscarriages of justice.
That being the case, it is particularly important that the miscarriages of justice that have occurred should be capable of investigation and should be put right as rapidly as possible on the broader base, which is simply that they are or may be unsafe.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sir Richard Body: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on his new clause. Twenty years ago, it would have been quite unnecessary, and I would have said that after 20 years at the criminal bar. Over the past two decades there have been far too many injustices that have not been put right by the Court of Appeal because of its procedures and various inhibitions. I suppose that many of us can think of constituents who have been convicted, not in such dramatic circumstances as those that we have heard about, but in a lesser way.
I can think of one very prominent constituent who was convicted of murder. It was what the French would call a

crime passionnel. He was het up and emotionally charged when he went to the police station and was undoubtedly coaxed into making a statement which I do not think would have held water and would have been put right by the kind of independent body about which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has spoken.
As I have said, there have been far too many injustices and it is intolerable to permit them to go on without a body such as that which the new clause proposes. Sooner or later, that body will be set up. Let us do it now rather than postpone it and in the intervening time have more injustices.

Mr. Trimble: I rise primarily to show my support and that of my hon. Friends for the principle behind the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I welcome the form of the new clause in that it refers not only to England and Wales but to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
No system will be perfect, and no matter what the circumstances, mistakes are bound to occur in any situation. Several years ago I spoke to a visiting group of American lawyers who were concerned about the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. I told them the remarkable fact that over the many years of operation of the Diplock courts, there had until then been no cases in which any person convicted in the courts was imprisoned protesting innocence. That, of course, is no longer true. We have had the UDR Four case, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has been particularly associated.
Since the Court of Appeal overturned three of the four convictions in that case, other cases have come forward, at least one of which appears to me to have some merit. Therefore, we cannot claim to be immune from problems, although I must tell the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) that at least we have the advantage of always getting transcripts of cases and judgments and automatic rights of appeal.
None the less, I am satisfied that there should be a review authority and that it is not right to leave the matter purely to the Home Secretary or the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, as the case might be.
Further, the review authority must operate in what one might call an inquisitorial manner. It must free itself from the adversarial approach that dominates the courts and appears to have dominated also the attitudes of the Home Office and administrators. Although the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not yet responded to the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone obtained on the Neil Latimer case a few weeks ago, it seemed from listening to his response that he was still far too much trapped within the habit of thought of someone who operates within the adversarial system. He seemed primarily concerned with defending and vindicating the judges and the judicial decision, rather than with taking an independent view and being motivated primarily by the search for truth, which must be the purpose of the review authority.
It is strange that lawyers who present cases and judges who decide them are comfortable with the thought that they may make mistakes when dealing with civil actions, and feel no rebuke when an appeal court overrules or varies their decision, but that they become desperately defensive


about criminal actions—as if they were fallible only in respect of civil actions and infallible in criminal matters. That is not a rational view.
I welcome the publication of the Home Office discussion paper. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, his new clause and this debate might have set its timetable and target. If so, that is a good thing. Perhaps it is a pity that it was not published earlier. I hope that the Home Office will not adopt a purely parochial attitude and consider only England and Wales, but that like and speedy consideration will be given to Northern Ireland and the other jurisdiction.
I agree that the wider grounds for appeal referred to in paragraph 44 of the paper should be adopted. The right approach is that adopted in Northern Ireland for county court appeals, when a complete new hearing is started. By complete, I mean that all the evidence is considered afresh—there is not the technical rehearing that occurs in the English Court of Appeal.
There should be judicial review of the review authority's actions, and it should be under an obligation to make wider disclosure than paragraph 73 of the paper envisages. Most important of all, there should be no limitation on the royal prerogative. The discussion paper makes the mistake of suggesting that the royal prerogative's future scope must be limited, but I believe that it should be available to cover the exceptional case—and by definition, the exceptional case cannot be predicted. An opportunity must exist for recourse to the royal prerogative.
Another problem that concerns me as a Northern Ireland Member is that of small jurisdictions. I am not sure of the extent to which that is a problem in Scotland, but I suspect that it is one. Northern Ireland has one Lord Chief Justice, a few Lord Justices of Appeal and a few puisne judges—a total of 10. A criminal case will be heard by one of them in the first instance. Under the Diplock courts, there is an automatic right of appeal to a hearing by a further three judges. That accounts for four judges out of 10. If the case is referred back to the criminal court of appeal, another three judges will be required. With the referral of the UDR Four case, one prosecuting counsel had been promoted to the Bench, so was ruled out of consideration. What will happen if such a case is referred back to the Court of Appeal, when it has already run through half the judiciary? Is it reasonable to expect that an entirely fresh view will be taken by judges capable of taking such a view?
Small jurisdictions also produce a better cohesion among the jury—everybody knows everybody else. I am sure that problem exists also in Scotland. One constituent of mine is in prison in Scotland, and there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the decision in that case was not safe. I encounter in the representations that I make exactly the same defensive attitude that we have seen among the judges and lawyers in Northern Ireland. So there is a particular problem there.
I finish with one general observation. Details have been given this evening of several serious miscarriages of justice. In some of those cases, although not all—it is not the sole problem—the problem was unethical conduct by the police, the prosecutors and others. That is a general problem. No review authority would be able to cope with that, but it has to be emphasised that part of the process that is adopted must be to reassert the ethical standards that ought to apply in the police and among prosecutors.
If I recall rightly, when Lord Denning referred on that celebrated occasion to an appalling vista, he had in mind that if the appellant's case was true, it meant that the police had lied and the lawyers has failed in their duty. That was what he saw as the appalling vista: those whom we relied on to behave honourably had behaved dishonourably. That is something that we have to deal with.
In Northern Ireland, another factor has aggravated the matter. As well as over-enthusiasm among the police and prosecutors, political pressure has been exerted, and corrupted the process. That may also have been a factor in some of the miscarriages of justice in England and Wales too. It has certainly been a factor in Northern Ireland in the case with which I am dealing. The miscarriages of justice in England and Wales have also had another effect. It has been significant in one case that affected us in Northern Ireland. It has resulted in a tendency by juries to disbelieve evidence. That perhaps follows on from what Lord Denning saw as the appalling vista.
I am glad that the Home Office has published its discussion paper. I hope that the matter will be progressed as speedily as possible. I hope that the other jurisdictions, Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be kept on board and that legislation will be introduced soon which will deal with the matter on a United Kingdom basis, with all the jurisdictions at the same time. I appreciate that, because of its background, there will have to be slight differences for Scotland. There is no significant difference on the matter between the legal systems in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. I hope that the Home Secretary can assure us this evening that the Northern Ireland Office will be fully on board on this issue and that changes will be made simultaneously.

Mr. Blair: I rise to speak in support of new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on the subject and the manner in which he moved the new clause today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), whose Bill on the subject has also helped to move the argument forward.
I wish to be brief and I intend to confine myself to one point. It is right that new clause 6 has been tabled. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect that if it had not been tabled we might not have had such a prompt response from the Home Office last Friday in the form of a discussion paper, although the Home Secretary is doubtless about to stretch our credulity a little more and tell us that it was a marvellous coincidence.
Of course there are problems of detail. For example, who would conduct the investigations of the new body? However, there is broad agreement in principle about the authority. There is agreement that the review body should be independent of the courts and should have its own procedure for investigations. There is a wide consensus as to the need for the body and a fair degree of consensus as to its powers.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) was right when he said that one of the important things about such a body is that questions of miscarriages of justice would no longer depend on the arbitrary swings of publicity, taking up a particular cause at any one time, but would be on the more objective basis of a proper and thorough investigation.
The argument for such a body has been concluded and won long since. I make that point in support of the new clause. The Royal Commission on criminal justice, which was in a sense the reason for the legislation before us, was set up on 14 March 1991—the day the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of the Birmingham Six, who had long and in vain relied on the usual procedures to obtain justice. It followed the 1989 inquiry of Sir John May into the convictions of the Guildford Four and the Maguires. In the course of that inquiry, Sir John made clear his belief that the present system should change, which was also the view of successive Home Secretaries. The inquiry had itself succeeded the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, produced more than a decade ago.
On page 6, the royal commission report—published nine months ago, in July 1993—states:
The widely publicised miscarriages of justice which have occurred in recent years have created a need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. That need has not diminished since we were appointed.
10.15 pm
A royal commission set up to investigate the need for such a body recommended its establishment. It has been debated for literally years, with a growing consensus on all sides that it is necessary. There is no substantial disagreement about the need or purposes of it. In those circumstances, it is scandalous that there is no provision for it in the Bill. Such provision should and could have been in the Bill, and would have attracted enormous support from all quarters in the House.
I venture to say that if anyone had suggested back in March 1991—when the royal commission was set up—that a recommendation for such a review body in its report would be the one proposal not included in the Bill, people would have been deeply surprised. The Home Secretary may shake his head, but I think that that is obvious. The commission was set up on the very day when the convictions were quashed and it was set up in part, at least, to look into the need for such a body. There was already a strong consensus in its favour, and the commission found definitively that it should be set up. Now, nine months on, we still have only a consultation paper from the Home Office. I believe that there is no good reason why we could not have proceeded in a much quicker and more effective way.
If we are to restore confidence within the criminal justice system, of course we must be keen to convict the criminal; but we must also be keen to provide justice for the innocent. That is the purpose of any good criminal justice system—not to favour the prosecution or the accused, but to seek and obtain the truth, wherever it may lie. We know that there has been a history of miscarriages of justice over the past few decades, and a royal commission set up to inquire into the purpose of a review body recommended its establishment. Establishing the review body, and including it in the Bill, would constitute an important statement on behalf of the House about the right balance in the criminal justice system.
There is no good reason for delay. I believe that if the Home Secretary proceeded now he would be doing a service to the entire criminal justice system, and establishing confidence within that system. I urge him to accept calls that have come from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and to act now to put the matter right.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I, too, shall be brief.
There is no doubt that a string of miscarriages of justice has marred the high reputation of British justice; equally, there is no doubt that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) deserves praise rather than vilification for the part that he has played. I must point out, however, that many—although not all—of those miscarriages of justice took place 16 years ago. Since then, a number of things have already happened to reduce the likelihood of such miscarriages, although not to seal off all possibility of them.
The miscarriages of justice took place before the establishment of an independent Crown Prosecution Service, genetic testing, the electro-static document analysis system, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—which protects suspects—and the changes in criminal trial procedure whereby judges warn juries to be ultra-careful in identification cases. These miscarriages mostly took place before the new training of lawyers and judges and, in particular, before the introduction of tape-recorded interviews. That will have reduced substantially, but not sufficiently, the likelihood of miscarriages of justice.
Immediately after the string of miscarriages, the Government set up the Runciman royal commission. They have accepted in particular the recommendation that there should be a criminal cases review authority, which is long overdue. What is wrong with the present system is simply that it misses some of the miscarriages of justice.
The Society of Conservative Lawyers gave evidence to Runciman. That evidence was a bit stronger than some of the Runciman proposals that the Government are now considering. We suggested that the Court of Appeal should always acquit if it has a lurking doubt, that more use should be made of the power of the Court of Appeal to order a retrial, that there should be legal aid to cover reasonable search for new evidence and that there should be a widening of principles whereby new evidence could be admitted.
We also said, however, that the Court of Appeal even in a reformed state would not be enough to remove some of the miscarriages of justice and we, too, suggested an independent review board. We made the point that it should not be the responsibility of the Home Secretary to decide whether or not matters should be considered for reference back to the Court of Appeal, as advised by Home Office officials, who sometimes seem to believe that there must be positive proof of innocence before anything is referred back. One cannot, by looking at papers, detect whether a police officer has been dishonest, whether a forensic scientist has made a mistake or whether a witness was in error.
There was always a fundamental flaw in leaving it to the Home Secretary—who, of course, is subject to approaches by archbishops and everybody else—to give the impression that some of his decisions may be made on a political or other basis when nobody has the slightest reason for thinking that that ever happens. Obviously we could remove that sort of decision from the Home Secretary and put it in the hands of an independent review body. That would be much better, but such a body must be properly staffed and properly funded and must have full investigative powers. In this regard I agree with much of what has been said during the debate. The body must take up its position as soon as possible, and the discussion paper is a good start.
We are considering the wrongful conviction of the innocent—a type of miscarriage of justice that is deplorable in every sense. But there is another type of miscarriage of justice—the wrongful acquittal of the guilty. It may be that every year there are tens of miscarriages of justice involving wrongful conviction of the innocent, but there are tens of thousands of miscarriages of justice involving acquittal of the guilty. These people then go out and commit more crimes and are responsible for more suffering and misery in society. Runciman has addressed that matter, too. My plea is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should implement those changes as quickly as possible, as he is doing in the Criminal Justice Bill and beyond, so that society may be rid of all kinds of miscarriages of justice—not just the conviction of the innocent but also the acquittal of the guilty.

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I often have very different opinions, and that will certainly continue to be the case. However, there is wide consensus in the House and in the country that there should be an independent body to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice. The establishment of such a body would be in the interests of British justice. I trust that the Home Secretary is listening attentively to the views of hon. Members and will agree to the establishment of an independent body.
There have been unjust attacks on British justice, and the impression has been given—and is still being given—that in every case in the past few years in which people have been released from prison they were innocent. I do not believe that that is what the courts said: they said that the convictions were not safe, which is very different from suggesting that every individual involved was wholly innocent.

Mr. Mullin: rose—

Rev. William McCrea: No, I shall not give way as I intend to speak for only a few minutes.
I stress that I am not interested in putting behind bars anyone who is innocent. British justice does not accept that the innocent should suffer, but I do not believe that the guilty should go free. I want there to be a genuine search for the truth. If those who have been released were guilty, I hope that we can somehow get to the very depths of the case, whether it be the Birmingham, Guildford or Ulster Defence Regiment cases. The House should be seeking the truth, irrespective of what the individual involved represents or of whether, in terms of Northern Ireland, he is from one section of the community or the other.
I have not heard much from Opposition Members about the UDR Four—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was one of the few who mentioned them. From the very beginning, my colleagues genuinely believed in the innocence of the UDR Four, while others have recently joined the bandwagon who in the past wrote that they were guilty.
Lawyers are not perfect; nor are judges, Ministers or Members of Parliament. Errors can be made and, if they have been made, they must be put right, which is why we should have an independent body to investigate matters. My colleagues will certainly support that notion tonight because it is important. I ask the Home Secretary to take the matter seriously and to accept that there is widespread concern in the community.
I make a further appeal to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Home Secretary about the case of one member of the UDR Four who still lies in prison. He is innocent of the crime of which he has been accused. Three of the UDR Four were let out but one has been left in, and the only possible reason for that is political. There are plenty of reasons why Neil Latimer should be let out and I trust that he will be released.
I ask the House to support the new clause as I believe that it is being forced to a Division. I trust that the right decision will be taken and that we shall strike a blow for good British justice.

Mr. Howard: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for the way in which he moved the new clause and for the way in which he has conducted his campaigns down the years. I agree that he must look back on some of his successes with considerable satisfaction.
Like every other hon. Member, I believe that one innocent person convicted is one too many. I want to put in place the best criminal justice system that it is possible to provide—a system that contains all necessary safeguards to minimise the possibility of a wrongful conviction, the most effective appeals procedures that we can devise, so that if there are any wrongful convictions they can be corrected at the earliest possible stage, and the best machinery for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice to ensure that, in the last resort, appropriate cases are referred back to the courts for review.
As the House will know, the Government have accepted the royal commission's recommendation that the powers to investigate and refer cases to the Court of Appeal should be removed from the Home Secretary and that a new body—the criminal cases review authority—should be set up to carry out those functions. We are committed to establishing the new authority as soon as possible.
That is a firm decision by the Government on the principle, but a decision in principle is not enough to provide the basis for detailed legislation. The royal commission considered the issues carefully and, we think, came to the right conclusion. However, its proposals do not amount to a detailed blueprint for the new authority. They do not answer all the questions that need to be settled before effecting this major constitutional change—probably the biggest in the area since the Criminal Appeal Act 1907.
There are further important issues to consider. Some are points of detail, but they nevertheless have to be decided before an effective scheme can be set in place. Others are more substantial. I shall say a word or two about some of them in a few moments. There may be different views on them, in the House and elsewhere, but they need to be resolved before we can proceed.
10.30 pm
We have been devoting a great deal of thought to identifying the issues and examining possible solutions. The results are set out in the discussion paper that I published on Friday. We have invited comments from those interested in this area of the criminal justice system by 31 May 1994. There are many people, practitioners and others, with a long-standing interest in miscarriage of justice cases—there is no doubt that the hon. Member for


Sunderland, South is among them—with experience and insights to offer. I want to hear from them and to benefit from their views.

Mr. Michael: The Secretary of State is basically asking us to be patient. Is not he aware that when those of us who were involved with the Criminal Justice Bill in 1993 moved similar propositions, we were were encouraged to be patient because, we were told, they were to be the basis, the heart, of the Bill currently before the House?

Mr. Howard: Whatever was said at that time was said before the royal commission's report was published. The royal commission might have come up with a detailed blueprint that would have enabled us to include provision for that body in the Bill. I can tell the House that no one would have been more pleased than I to include those provisions in the Bill. I was extremely keen to do it. It is perfectly clear, however, for the reasons that I have set out, that it is not a practical proposition.
The paper that I published on Friday discusses a range of important issues. They include the authority's relationship with the courts and with the Government, the composition, working methods, procedures and powers of the authority, the criteria for investigating cases and referring them back to the courts, the circumstances in which the royal prerogative should be exercised in the future, how members should be appointed and to whom the authority should be accountable.
The Lord Chief Justice, when he spoke in another place last October in a debate on the royal commission's report, stressed the importance of not rushing to creating new machinery for looking at alleged miscarriages of justice. He said:
It is necessary to have a review procedure and it should be conducted by an independent body".
But he also said:
it is extremely important …that we should not proceed too quickly. It is important that the new body should be properly constituted and set up."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1993; Vol. 549, c. 795–98.]
I agree with him and I can assure him, and the House, that when the new authority is established, it will be after very careful consideration of, and consultation on, all the issues. The new authority will be properly constituted and set up. That is the right way forward, rather than the new clauses.
I know that many hon. Members are impatient to see that change introduced and so am I, but we should not do anyone any service if we rushed the legislation through without having attended to all the detailed questions that are set out in the discussion paper. It is for those reasons that I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 308.

Division No. 182]
[10.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, Andrew F.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Austin-Walker, John
Blair, Tony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul





Body, Sir Richard
Hain, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Hall, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hanson, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Byers, Stephen
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Heppell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hume, John


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jowell, Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
Livingstone, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Ms Angela
Loyden, Eddie


Eastham, Ken
Lynne, Ms Liz


Enright, Derek
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCrea, Rev William


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
McMaster, Gordon


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fraser, John
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Maginnis, Ken


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Alice


Garrett, John
Mallon, Seamus


George, Bruce
Mandelson, Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marek, Dr John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godsiff, Roger
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mildred
Maxton, John


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michael, Alun


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan






Miller, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Simpson, Alan


Morley, Elliot
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mudie, George
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Murphy, Paul
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Hara, Edward
Spellar, John


Olner, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Neill, Martin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steinberg, Gerry


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stevenson, George


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Pope, Greg
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Trimble, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tyler, Paul


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Purchase, Ken
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Redmond, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Winnick, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wise, Audrey


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, Jimmy


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Dr Tony


Rooney, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. John Cummings and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Dennis Turner.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Ashby, David
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkins, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butcher, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Bates, Michael
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clappison, James


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, Sir David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mates, Michael


Green way, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John






Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sweeney, Walter


Pawsey, James
Sykes, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tracey, Richard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Sumberg, David
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11

DUTY OF CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE TO VICTIMS

'.-The Crown Prosecution Service shall be under a duty to—

(a) inform a complainant of the progress of the charge against the accused, of the dates of any court hearings, and of the outcome of any trial.
(b) consult the complainant about the nature of the charge to be brought against the accused, receive the views of the complainant about the level of the charge and, should the Crown Prosecution Service accept a lesser charge, inform the complainant in writing of the reasons for reducing the charge.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 12—Notification to victim or family of offender's release—

'(1) Where an offender has been convicted of—

(a) sexual offence involving violence;
(b) murder;
(c) manslaughter; or
(d) causing grievous bodily harm

and has been given a custodial sentence, the judge may direct that the Secretary of State shall either—

(i) notify such persons as he may specify, who may include the victim of the offence or, where appropriate, the family of the victim, before the offender is to be released, either on home leave or on parole, of his impending release; or
(ii) make arrangements for such persons to be informed.
(2) Where the judge makes no direction under subsection (1) above, an application may be made at any time after the trial for such a direction to be made by the court.
(3) When the judge makes a direction under subsection (1) above an application may be made at any time after the trial for such a direction to be varied or discharged provided that the court shall be satisfied that the victim or such other persons referred to in the direction have been consulted and had an opportunity to make representation to the court.'.

New clause 47—Victim protection injunction—

'1. Where a person convicted of indecent assult, rape, murder or manslaughter is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the Crown Court may also impose a victim protection injunction upon that defendant.
2. A "victim protection injunction" is an order under which the defendant shall be prohibited from entering a defined area for a specified period of time, where

(i) a defined area shall mean an area to be determined by the court, but not more than ten miles radius of

(a) the usual home of the victim or victims; or
(b) where the defendant is being sentenced on conviction for murder or manslaughter, the usual home of the close family or legal guardians of any victim
(ii) a specified period of time shall mean a period of time to be determined by the court but in any event shall be

(a) not less than two years; and
(b) not more than ten years; or
(c) where the defendant is being sentenced on conviction for murder or manslaughter, not more than twenty years.
3.—(1) A victim protection injunction may be imposed at the discretion of the court, after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and with particular regard to

(a) the age of the victim or victims; and
(b) the nature and seriousness of the offence or offences; and
(c) the distress caused to the victim or victims by the offence or offences; or where the defendant is being sentenced on conviction for murder or manslaughter, the distress caused to the close family of the victim or victims; and
(d) the impact of the victim protection injunction on the defendant and his close family; and provided that the court is satisfied that
(a) distress will be caused to the victim or victims of their close family if the injunction is not imposed; or
(b) the impact of the injunction upon the defendant and his close family will not be so onerous as to be unjust, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(2) The court shall take into consideration in determining the length of a term of imprisonment the effect of such a victim protection injunction has upon the defendant and may reduce the period to be served in prison may up to a maximum of one third of the sentence at its discretion.
4. Breach of any of the terms of a victim protection injunction shall be contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
5. The victim protection injunction shall be enforceable for breach in the Crown Court

(i) upon written complaint to the Crown Court by any of the victims or any member of their close family or legal guardians such as the victim protection injunction seeks to protect;
(ii) by the Crown Prosecution Service upon their receiving written complaint from any one of the victims or any member of a victim's close family or legal guardians such as the victim protection injunction seeks to protect.
6. Any person who has been made the subject of a victim protection injunction may be arrested without warrant where

(i) at the time of arrest, the police have reasonable cause to believe that person is in breach of that victim protection injunction or


(ii) the police have received written complaint made by any of the victims or any member of a victim's close family or legal guardians such as the victim protection injunction seeks to protect, and such written complaint appears to the police to have been made in good faith.
7. The defendant or his legal representative may apply at any time to the Crown Court to have the victim protection injunction varied or discharged, on notice to each victim or their close family or legal guardians, unless the court accepts that the whereabouts of the same cannot be ascertained, provided that

(i) each victim (or their close family or legal guardians as the court thinks appropriate) consent to the variation or lifting of the victim protection injunction; and subsection (iv) below applies; or
(ii) none of the victims or, where the injunction was made in respect of a conviction for murder or manslaughter, none of the close family or legal guardians of any victim, any longer resides in the area defined by the victim protection injunction or would suffer unjust distress if the injunction were varied or discharged and subsection (iv) below applies; or
(iii) the defendant satisfies the court that compassionate grounds exist for the victim protection injunction m be temporarily varied to accommodate a specific short-term purpose such as attending a family funeral; and
(iv) the court considers it reasonable in all the circumstances, including the circumstances of any victim or victims or their close family or legal guardians, for the victim protection injunction to be so varied or discharged.
8. "Close family" shall mean

(i) spouse;
(ii) children or stepchildren who reside in their patents' home;
(iii) where the person is under the age of 18, the parents, stepparents or guardians of that person;
(iv) a cohabitee.'.

Mr. Michael: I gather, with some regret, that to ensure that we have time to debate these important clauses we have been deprived of a contribution from that Stakhanovite Trappist, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), because we are not going to debate statutory local partnerships. We have debated that issue, however, during the passage of several criminal justice Bills and our position is well known.
The new clauses pay due regard to the interests of victims within the criminal justice system. Constituents and people involved throughout the system have complained that not enough is done to inform victims of what is happening about a complaint, including, for example, the progress of a charge against the accused; the dates of court hearings; and the outcome of a trial. Victims often know nothing of those matters.
Victims are not consulted, often on pertinent matters. Victims can discover that a case has been dropped or that the charge has been reduced to a less serious one without their ever having been consulted or being given the opportunity to express a view.
It is right that, at the end of the day, the relevant decisions should be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service and we do not suggest that the victims should have the right to veto those decisions. It would be only right and proper, however, and a useful discipline on the CPS when making its decisions, for it to have to inform, in writing, the victim of the reasons for reducing or not proceeding with a charge.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed concern at the way in which charges have not been pursued. They are aware that many victims feel that not only have they been subject to nasty and personal crimes,

including violence, sometimes extreme, but they have been damaged again by the criminal justice system's failure to deal with the offence adequately.
New clause 12 is equally uncontentious. It calls for the victim or the victim's family to be notified of the offender's release, in appropriate circumstances. The new clause would direct that that information should be provided to the judge—discretion is given to the court. The clause would not make notification mandatory, but would merely ensure that in circumstances where such information is important, it should be provided.
In the past year, on more than one occasion serious comment has been made by judges about the severity of an offence. Those judges have expressed the hope that a young person should be able to grow up without the fear of further interference or personal damage. The victim or a victim's family have discovered, however, that the perpetrator of sometimes horrific acts, commented on by the judge, is walking the streets. That causes great damage to the victim. The House will be aware of one particular case in which the victim committed suicide because he was so shocked by the release of the offender. It is therefore sensible for the House to make provision for the courts to be able, but not to require them, to issue appropriate directions in appropriate cases.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) intends to refer to the circumstances in which a person could be prevented from going to certain areas because of offences committed. That should be decided, yet again, at the discretion of the courts, at the time of sentence and in appropriate cases only. That would ensure that all circumstances were taken into consideration.
In view of the importance of the next debate on new clause 13 on racial attacks, and its importance to communities throughout the country, the debate on new clauses 11, 12 and 47 must, of necessity, be brief. It is an important debate, however, because it calls on the Government to do one thing only—to give consideration to victims and put them at the heart of the criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the new clauses, as that would be a step forward in giving proper consideration to victims; a consideration which they do not receive now either from the CPS or from the criminal justice system as a whole.

Ms Coffey: I want to refer in particular to new clause 12.
My interest in ensuring that victims are notified, on request, of the release of an offender grew out of a constituency case. A woman who had been subject to a particularly serious attack first learned of the release of the offender from the local newspapers. As the House can imagine, that was a great shock to her, because the newspapers knew of his release before she did, and she had no time to adjust to the fact.
The victims charter states that it is not generally practicable to tell the victim of the release of an offender and gives evidence for that, in that it may be many years after the event or victims may have moved away. Certainly in that case it is impractical, but in a situation where there has been an especially horrendous attack on someone and the victim may have spent several years trying to get over the emotional trauma of thet attack and may have residual anxieties, it is important that the victim is prepared for the release of the offender.
Nothing can ever make up to a victim for the trauma of an attack on them—at least, nothing in terms of what the penal system can hand out to the offender—but I do not think that that is the point. All victims have to be prepared for the eventual release of the offender, and it would be extremely helpful to the victims if they were notified in advance.
I am not saying that they should be notified of the exact prison from which the offender has been released or the exact time or the day that the offender will be released. They should simply be given some warning that that release is imminent so that they can prepare themselves for it and not find out, as my constituent did, from the local papers, which to her was a traumatic event, as a result of which she felt that she was not being dealt with fairly by the penal system. That advance notification could help balance out the situation.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be as brief as I can, but I wish to mention a very important matter. Last week, Allyson Burgess had to resort to making a private prosecution, incurring a £15,000 legal bill, to see justice done following the death of her husband, who was killed by a drunken driver. The Crown Prosecution Service official, she said,
knew who I was but seemed to find me a nuisance".
She said in The Daily Telegraph on Friday:
the system is geared to criminals and not victims like me.
Her solicitor, Mr. Martin Smith, told me today that the technicality that resulted in that fiasco could become even worse if the effects of ex parte Chaudhry are not dealt with by primary legislation. Effectively, the Law Lords have said that, if the CPS says that the only charge is careless driving, even people with sufficient means will not be able to pursue a private prosecution, as the Chaudhry case will prevent it.
The primary object of my speaking tonight is to bring to the attention of the House the stupidity of the current position, and to gain a better deal for victims of crime.
This week, I met in my surgery the brother of a victim of an identical case to that of Mrs. Burgess. What is more, there may be as many as 600 similar cases in the system. Mr. Peake, the victim's brother, wrote to the Home Secretary on 19 March 1994, pointing out the loophole and asking:
Why is it that my family are suffering and yet we are the innocent?
I shall not dwell on the facts of the case as the CPS may find grounds for a further prosecution beyond the only remaining charge against the driver relating to the fact that he left the scene of the accident—"accident" being a word that I use with some bitterness.
This clause will not bring back Mr. Peake's brother. It will not bring back Mr. Burgess. What it will do, however, is enable the victim, or in these cases the victim's family, to engage in a discussion with the CPS and ensure that any moves towards a lesser charge come only after every stone is turned, which is obviously not the case today.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Last year, 14-year-old Andrew Olden committed suicide on hearing that the man who had sexually abused him would be released from prison and would be returning to his community. The attacker, Kevin Woods, aged 33, had served 10 months of an 18-month sentence. Andrew's mother said at the inquest that Andrew

could not live with the thought that that man would be free again in the community. It had a grave and traumatic effect on Andrew, who was taunted by other schoolchildren in his village about Woods's return to the village. Andrew Olden hanged himself.
What about the girl raped by a classmate? The sentence initially hit the headlines because the girl was given £50 to have a holiday and the rapist received a £500 fine, although it was subsequently increased to two years' custodial sentence. The victim and her parents are terrified about the return of that rapist to her locality, and have repeatedly contacted the police to express their concern.
What about the mother who, several months ago, was raped by a group of youths? They locked her in her flat and raped her repeatedly over a 24-hour period in the presence of her young toddler. They all live in the same area and will, in due course, be released and return to that area.
New clause 47 attempts to do something about that situation. Victims should not have to face their attackers in the street so soon after the crime. They should have at least some time to come to terms with the attack. The new clause seeks to protect victims of rape and other violent crime, and the families of those who have been the victim of murder or manslaughter, by preventing, in certain cases where the court decides that it is appropriate, their attacker from re-entering the community where the victim lives.
11 pm
When a victim protection injunction is imposed, the judge would take the impact of that on a defendant and his or her family into consideration in determining the length of the prison sentence. Injunctions are regularly given in domestic violence cases.
The new clause would give criminal courts the power to protect victims. Such a power has previously been held only by civil courts. It would be enforceable by the victim on complaint to the police, so would not impose substantial extra burdens on police time. The important point is that victims, particularly very young victims, would have the right not to have to meet their attacker in the street—perhaps grinning—soon after the event.
The victim protection injunction would put the rights of victims before those of their attackers. It is a new idea and, I hope, a good one. The criminal justice system does little enough for victims. If we can at least do this, the death of 14-year-old Andrew Olden will not have been completely in vain.

Mr. Maclean: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is here, may I first correct something that I said on courts martial under new clause 75? I wish to clarify my intervention in the the hon. Gentleman's speech. He asked about the possibility of appeals from courts martial in Scotland being heard at an Appeal Court in Edinburgh, "as they now are". I said that that would continue to happen, but I am afraid that we were both wrong and I apologise for misleading the House. I may have raised the hon. Gentleman's expectations in that regard, but the appeal of a Scottish service man or any other service man against his conviction by a court martial will not necessarily be heard in Scotland by Scottish judges.
Although the Court Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 provides that Scottish judges may be nominated to sit in the Court Martial Appeal Court, and the Lord Chief Justice can


choose where that court sits—in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else—it usually sits at the High Court in London with English judges. It applies the provisions of the service discipline Acts in the same way as the courts martial themselves. The overriding principle is that the court martial and any appeal from it will apply the provisions of the service discipline Acts consistently, wherever it sits.
I apologise for the fact that my earlier remarks were wrong and for inadvertently misleading the House.

Dr. Godman: I need hardly say that I am extremely grateful to the Minister for putting the record straight:. May I ask a further question on appeals from courts martial? Have any such appeals been made to High Court judges in Scotland, if not Edinburgh, in the past five or six years?

Mr. Maclean: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear me say that I do not have that information. I undertake to write to him as soon as possible with all the details, which is, I suspect, the safest course of action.
To return to new clause 11: the Government's acceptance of a number of the royal commission's recommendations designed to improve the treatment and care of victims and witnesses was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 6 October 1993. These included the idea that victims should, as far as possible, be kept informed of the progress and outcome of cases and that, when appropriate, the CPS should pass on information to the victims and witnesses direct, rather than through the police. Consideration is being given to how these recommendations should best be taken forward to supplement measures already in place relating to the treatment of victims and witnesses.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seeks to impose an absolute duty on the CPS to keep the victim informed of developments at all stages of the prosecution. That goes well beyond what the royal commission recommended and the Government accepted. Of course it is right that victims should be kept in touch with what is happening in their cases. The victims charter assigns to the police the main responsibility for that. The royal commission examined the issue in its report last year and concluded that that was sensible as a general rule. The police will already have had contact with the victim and will be in a better position to pass on information. The Government agree with that.
In addition, there are practical reasons for that view. The CPS has just over 2,000 lawyers, the police establishment in England and Wales has more than 128,000. The task would be impossible for the CPS to carry out without enormously increased resources, which are not available. The CPS is an independent prosecution authority, and as such does not act directly on behalf of the victims; it acts in a wider public interest. Both the victims charter and the royal commission accept that that is the right line to take.
To give victims the right to be consulted about the level of charges to be brought against the accused would fetter the independence of the CPS, which would not serve the interests of justice. Of course, the victim's interests are important in deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. The CPS will take them into account, as the code for Crown prosecutors provides. On a practical level, comprehensive consultation with the complainant concerning the nature and level of the charge would build in delay and increase the time taken to deal with the case.
As for new clause 12, I am sure that the motivation behind it is a real concern for the victims of crime and a desire to help them. I applaud and share that sentiment. I cannot, however, accept what the new clause would do. It would give judges the power to direct the Secretary of State to notify specified people,
who may include the victim of the offence",
of the impending release of an inmate convicted of one of the listed offences. I do not want to labour the point, but such a directive power of the judiciary over the Executive would have constitutional implications. We might all entertain doubts about it on that ground alone.
On the face of it, it may seem reasonable and sensible that victims and their families should be told of the impending release of the offender who victimised them—indeed, there are already arrangements for that to happen when appropriate—but by no means all victims want to receive the information. The offender may be released many years after the trial and the events that gave rise to it, by which time the victim may have succeeded in putting his suffering behind him. Victims may have moved to distant parts of the country, and may have completely recovered from their unhappy experience of the crime. It would not help such people to be notified of the release of the person who caused them so much distress—whether or not they wanted the information.
Subsection (3) would allow the victim and/or the victim's family to apply for the direction under which they were to receive the information to be rescinded or otherwise altered, so long as the direction in question was made under subsection (1). I do not think that a sensible or realistic remedy for victims who do not wish to be given information about the release of the offender. It would be an additional imposition, which many would not know how to set about handling. Furthermore, it would not be a remedy available in respect of a direction made by the court under subsection (2).
As for life sentence prisoners—all those sentenced for murder and some of those sentenced for the other three offences mentioned in the new clause—the victims charter already says that release plans for those serving life sentences should be prepared with regard to the wishes of the victim or his or her family. Arrangements are in place to ensure that the probation service gets in touch with the victims whenever possible to discover their views. If they are anxious about the offender's release, their anxieties can be met by imposing restrictions on the offender in his release licence. That too is quite different from what would happen under the new clause.
I cannot accept the new clause. It is inappropriate for the reasons that I have suggested and I think that the underlying objective is already being addressed and increasingly being achieved by collaborative work involving the Prison Service, the Probation Service and others.
New clause 47 would enable the Crown court to subject an offender who has been convicted of one of the offences of indecent assault, rape, murder or manslaughter and who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment to a victim protection injunction. That would amount to an exclusion order to ban him from the defined area. The practical difficulties for the police of enforcing such an order would be formidable, even if the area from which he was prohibited from entering were to be defined in recognisable terms, such as district council areas or a county.
The forbidden area is defined in terms of a radius of


not more than ten miles
from the victim's "usual home" or, in the case of an offender who has been sentenced for murder or manslaughter,
not more than ten miles
from the "usual home" of the victim's
close family or legal guardians".
How is the offender who is subject to one of the victim protection injunctions to know when he has come nearer than the specified distance to his victim's home, particularly in a large conurbation? How is a police officer who is to enforce it supposed to know?
That is not all. The clause defines the close family of the victim who is dead as a result of murder or manslaughter by the offender to include the spouse, the children living with their parents and cohabiters, but all too often such people are also the close family of the offender as well as of the victim. There are undoubtedly cases in which it is right to keep an offender away from his near relations, but it can hardly be right to make statutory provision to enable the court to order it almost as a matter of course.
Even where the victim is not related to the offender, the offender has his own family and they are quite likely to live in the same area as the victim. Do we really want to prevent the offender from having contact with his own family? Is that likely to encourage him to turn his back on violence? Victims and the close family of dead victims do not simply live in the vicinity of their usual home. They may have jobs at some considerable distance from their usual home and may spend most of their waking hours in the vicinity of their workplace, which could not be covered by a victim protection injunction. They may have more than one home. Which home is the usual one?
There are many problems with the clause although, superficially, it looks attractive. However, it has considerable problems and I am not minded to accept it. I have listened carefully to the arguments by Opposition Members on their three new clauses but I am afraid that at present I am unable to accept them.

Mr. Michael: The Minister is obviously confused. He has not bothered to read the new clauses, as is clear from the way in which he responded. He has not bothered to use the time since the Bill was in Committee to examine the Opposition arguments made there. If he had used that time properly, he would know that the suggestion is not to fetter the work of the Crown Prosecution Service: it is to require it to consult. Nor is it a matter of fettering the court. It is to give an opportunity to put protections in place where that is appropriate in the circumstances of the victim or victims or the family of the victim.
I ask the Minister to read the report of the debate and to examine some of the examples that have been given. He should respond in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who raised specific points. I do not want to delay the House now, but I hope that the Minister will do my hon. Friend the courtesy of responding to him outside the House. The Minister answered most of his own points himself; otherwise the text, if read properly, will answer the points that he made.
The essence of the debate is that the victim needs to be treated with respect, understanding and sensitivity because the victim has suffered the direct effects of the crime. Victims should have information and their views should be

taken into account. They should be respected as witnesses and within the whole system. That is the essence of our argument, but it is clear that the Minister will not accept it. We shall return to the issues on many occasions until he and other Ministers accept the importance of placing the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system. However, for tonight I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

RACIAL HARASSMENT

'1. (1) In relation to any prosecution for any offence of violence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any evidence tending to show that such offence has been committed on the ground of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin ("racial grounds").

(2) On conviction of any offence of violence the court shall have regard to such evidence in determining the penalty, and, if satisfied that the offence was committed on racial grounds ("racial violence"), shall impose an additional penalty which may exceed the maximum penalty otherwise prescribed for such offence.

2. (1) A person is guilty of the offence of racial harassment if on racial grounds he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby; or
(b) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable:

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 50—Aggravation of racial hatred—
'(1) If any person commits any offence provided for by—

(i) sections 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or
(ii) sections 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and does so with a motive of racial hatred, then he shall be guilty of the said offence with aggravation of racial hatred. 
(2) In this section, "racial hatred" means racial hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.'.

New clause 88—Racial hatred—
'.-Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows—
In section 27(1) there shall be substituted for the words "of the Attorney General" the words "of the Director of Public Prosecutions".'.

New clause 89—Offences committed on racial grounds—
'.—(1) In relation to any prosecution for any offence of violence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any evidence tending to show that such offence has been committed on racial grounds.
(2) On conviction of any offence of violence the court shall have regard to such evidence in determining the penalty and if satisfied that the offence was committed on racial grounds shall impose a penalty, which shall not be more than twice the


maximum prescribed penalty. The court shall be required to give reasons for the penalty imposed, indicating in what way it has taken account of its finding that the offence was committed on racial grounds.'.

New clause 90—Racial harassment (No. 2)—
'.—(1) A person is guilty of the offence of racial harassment if on racial grounds he—

(a) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress; or
(b) uses words or behaviour or displays any writing, sign or other visual representation which is offensive on racial grounds within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has worked so hard on the Bill, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important new clause. I do so as a lifelong anti-racist and someone who recently produced two reports on racial attacks. All the evidence that I gathered in compiling them convinced me and my colleagues that the law relating to acts of racial harassment and violence urgently needs strengthening.
That matter is one on which we have pressed the Government before, but Ministers told us that our proposals could only make prevention more difficult. We listened to their objections and redrafted accordingly. While there is much more that we want the Government to do, the simple and limited proposals in new clause 13 offer a way forward.
New clause 13 creates a new criminal, arrestable offence of racial harassment and provides for heavier penalties to be imposed by the courts for existing crimes of violence where they are committed on racial grounds. I remind the House that those grounds are colour, race, nationality, and ethnic or national origin. The overwhelming evidence of racial harassment is that of white people abusing people of different colour or religion. Clearly, the definition we use would cover also racial abuse of white people by people of another colour.
We cannot escape the unpalatable fact that racism is endemic in Britain today. Despite existing laws on incitement, nearly 30 years of race relations legislation and much good practice by racial equality councils, local authorities and others, we are experiencing a rising tide of horrific racial abuse. Only recently has public awareness been raised, and primarily because of the 14 racial murders that have occurred in the past two years and the appalling injuries inflicted on people such as Muktar Ahmed and Quaddus Ali, who suffered brutal attacks by gangs of white men and survived them.
Those cases were recognised by the police and public for what they were—racially motivated violence. Intense focus on a few extreme cases, however, belies the widespread and persistent nature of less violent but deeply offensive and repetitive racial harassment.
This morning, I received a letter asking why I was

giving Blacks all this attention?
I tell the House why. Black people—along with Jewish and Asian people and members of other ethnic minorities—are spat upon, taunted in the streets, have their homes daubed with graffiti and their religious centres defiled. That is why the issue needs attention and our new clause is required.
Those are not the random crimes that sadly and all-too-frequently affect society at large. They are not cases of the wrong person being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The victims of racial abuse are specifically selected because of their colour or creed. They are victims twice over—of the offence itself and of racism. They know why they were singled out and that they may be singled out again. They know also that anyone from the same group is a potential victim. Little wonder that such abuse engenders widespread fear, that people become afraid to leave their homes and afraid for their children, and that many suffer a permanent sense of humiliation.
Such abuse occurs throughout Britain. In England and Wales alone, racial incidents recorded by the police in 1993 were close to 9,000—double the number five years ago. Yet research consistently shows massive under reporting. The real figure for racial incidents in England and Wales last year is estimated at between 150,000 and 200,000. Those figures, I suggest to the House, are a terrible indictment of our society and surely a challenge to the Government to act, and act decisively.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the failure of the Government to support the Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)?

Ms Ruddock: Very much so. My hon. Friend makes an important point. That Bill not only had a wide consensus of support outside the House, but was supported by the Labour party and other parties in the House. We regret that the Government could not see fit to support the Bill introduced by a member of their own party.
Under the present law, few of the perpetrators of racial offences are caught and even fewer are punished. The Government have no information on clear-up rates and no plans to gather any. Suffice it to say that the Attorney-General gave his sanction to prosecutions under incitement law of a mere 14 people in the past seven years. Yet last week no less an authority than the Prime Minister told the House that the existing law was adequate to deal with racial hatred. Well, the victims do not think so. Most of them do not report the offences against them because they do not expect any remedies. Often, they have no confidence in the police. Yet the police in turn say that the laws are inadequate and that they lack resources.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend make a comparison with the 1950s and 1960s, when the Conservative'Government of the time refused to act on race discrimination, always arguing that special laws were not necessary? A Labour Government in 1964 started the process of putting on to the statute book anti-discrimination laws which have undoubtedly helped to ensure that people who do not have a white skin can obtain employment.

Ms Ruddock: My hon. Friend's point is well made. He does well to recall those times and that history. Let us hope that history will not repeat itself tonight and that the Government might have learnt some lessons in the intervening years.
New clause 13 gives clarity to the offence of racial harassment and enables the police to arrest without warrant the perpetrators, where they are suspected. It ensures that racial motivation must be examined as an aggravating factor in other violent offences and that, on conviction, the double burden of the victim is reflected in the sentence. Both proposals have wide support, including that of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Anti-Racist Alliance, members of the police forces and all political parties in the House. Both proposals provide an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that they are tough on racially motivated crime and that they care about the victims.
As the Commission for Racial Equality says in its briefing to us today:
The law has a vital part to play in setting and reflecting standards of public behaviour.
Racists are beginning to campaign actively in Britain. No longer are they kept underground. They are standing for elections and in one case won a local by-election. It is time that the House took racial abuse, racial harassment and racial violence much more seriously and that the Government implemented proposals, if not our proposals, to do something more constructive about it.
We believe that acceptance of new clause 13 would send a powerful signal that the House is determined to take at least one vital step on the path to ending racial abuse in Britain.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the move to create a specific offence of racial harassment. That is also the aim of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred, and which has cross-party support. However, I shall concentrate mainly on new clause 50, which I tabled.
The purpose of the new clause is to deal with the problem of racism when violence is committed against the person, or when an offence against public order has taken place and the motivation is racist. The virtue of that approach is that, in my view, it would make it easier to obtain convictions than would the creation of a specific offence of racial violence.
No tariff of penalties is attached to new clause 50, as few of the offences covered by it currently attract the maximum penalty permitted under the law; but, if racial hatred is proved, the judge may sentence accordingly in most cases. Racially motivated attacks have, alas, become more prominent and numerous. There have been a number of vicious assaults—and, indeed, murders—of mostly young Asian men.
There are no reliable figures showing the true extent of racially motivated attacks, although a number of police forces are now beginning to record Home Office-reportable offences. In the Metropolitan police district, in the 12 months to September 1993, the police reported 2,110 allegations of reportable offences and 1,730 racial incidents classified by area. They broke down those incidents by offence groups. Common assaults constituted 14 per cent., assaults 18 per cent., abusive language 25 per cent., criminal damage 29 per cent. and all other offences 14 per cent.
The police also classified the victims of the racial incidents, revealing that 46 per cent. were Asian, 22 per cent. black, 18 per cent. white Europeans and 4 per cent.

dark-skinned Europeans. Other victims formed the remaining 10 per cent. Six per cent. of all the incidents were recorded as being anti-semitic. Those figures, however, give no evidence of the seriousness of the offences committed. Some of the smaller groups have suffered some of the more horrific offences, particularly the anti-semitic ones.
For some time, the Commission for Racial Equality has argued in favour of a specific offence of racial violence. The law does not recognise any such category of offence; as a result, the police have not routinely counted the attacks and are not required to investigate racial motivation.
The proposed new clause that stands in my name would have the benefit of effecting a change in the attitudes of the police and the prosecuting authorities, and this would assist greatly towards eliminating a scandalous development in our civil society. In the past the police have been criticised for ignoring or condoning racism. I do not believe that our police forces are generally guilty of these faults. It is extremely encouraging that, in his very first speech following his appointment, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Paul Condon, attacked racism in the police force. There are many ways in which, following the Scarman inquiry, community policing initiatives have helped to stamp out this behaviour. Alas, it appears that amendment of the criminal law is necessary if the attack is to be made more effective.
11.30 pm
The proposed new offence of racial aggravation would enable a court to convict where there was evidence of an offence of violence and proof of racial motivation. The court could take that into consideration and impose a more severe sentence accordingly. Proof of racial motivation would not be a necessary ingredient for conviction, but if there were such proof it would allow a condign punishment to be inflicted. I regard this as the most likely means of effecting the change that the Commission for Racial Equality advocates.
Equally, the creation of a new offence of racial violence could bring the law into disrepute as it would be difficult to prove motivation and difficult to obtain conviction. Consequently, to the horror of racial attacks would be added the frustration of failure to secure conviction.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: In a sense, there is a coming together of all parts of the House in the presentation of these new clauses. I have the honour—and I welcome the opportunity—to deal with the cluster at the tail end of the group. As hon. Members will no doubt soon begin to gather at the Bar of the House in anticipation of a Division, it behoves me to be reasonably brief.
Some of my hon. Friends may not necessarily agree with all points. in the arguments in favour of the Opposition's new clauses. Some of these are complicated points of law, which Members who are not lawyers may find slightly more difficult to handle. We have to face the very great problem of an adequate definitional basis for singling out racially motivated attacks on persons and the great complexity of making definitions stick in law. That is an obvious difficulty with which lawyers on both sides of the arguments will have to grapple, often at great length.
None the less, I believe that it is the will of the House that something more must be done. Thus, I listened with great interest to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), as


he enunciated his reasons for proposing new clause 50–on his own to start with, but then accompanied by one of his distinguished colleagues.
New clauses 88, 89 and 90 are technical, but they deal with the fundamental problem. They are, to some extent, similar to the Opposition's new clauses, although there are slight differences in wording. The principal element of new clause 88 is that the Attorney-General requirement would be replaced with a Director of Public Prosecutions requirement. Good legal opinion suggests that that would be a considerable improvement.
New clause 89 relates, at least a little, to the first part of Labour's new clause 13, and new clause 90 relates to the second part of that provision. I believe that the latter is the most important amendment in the group.
Although they have not been selected by the Chair—I make no complaint about that—new clauses 86 and 87 were part of the grouping in logical terms because they provided definitions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If they were not selected, the hon. Gentleman cannot debate them.

Mr. Dykes: I was referring to them tangentially., but I accept your criticism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and withdraw my comments immediately.
Part of the reason for tabling the new clauses was that some hon. Members of all parties are disappointed that the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) has not yet progressed as far as we had hoped that it would. We live in an increasingly multi-ethnic community, but there is a growing problem in my constituency, in northwest and north London and in Greater London as a whole, and there is a particular problem south of the river.
The Government would be wise to consider new legislation now to intensify the definitions of racially motivated attacks. Every day, the newspapers are full of dreadful stories of people who are attacked because of their racial origin or the colour of their skin and for no other reason.
We already have a good basis for new legislation. Existing legislation has been strongly supported by successive Conservative Administrations. Now is the time to go further. Of course, lawyers can always argue about the specific wording of technical clauses. The new clauses are technical, but they are human and moral, too. It behoves us all to accept the new clauses and I support them with great pleasure, hoping that the Minister will respond positively. If he wishes to delay matters by saying that the Government need more tune to consider the new clauses, the House might accept that, but I would not do so with too much ease because the problem is now urgent.
Although this point is on a wholly different level of human behaviour, I share the anxiety felt by many hon. Members about the fact that many young members of the Metropolitan police are still harassing or stopping too many black youths—who are usually driving cars—for no other reason than the colour of their skin. That has been admitted repeatedly by senior police officers at Scotland Yard. Although the matter is not dealt with in the wording or intent of the new clauses, I mention it deliberately at the end of my remarks in the hope that it will also be considered by the Minister of State.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I support the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford

(Ms Ruddock) said, we need a new law to deal with racial attacks. Such attacks are vile criminal acts which make people's lives a misery. The victims' lives are blighted by fear for themselves and their children.
As my hon. Friend said, there has been a steep rise in the number of racial attacks. In 1988, 4,407 racial attacks were reported. By 1993, the figure had risen to 8,779, an increase of 100 per cent. in five years. Forty per cent. occurred in London. It has been estimated that the figure represents an under-reporting of the true figure, because only one in 20 of such attacks are reported to the police. The Minister told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that there were probably 130,000 to 140,000 racial incidents a year, and there is good reason to believe that that is also an underestimate. As my hon. Friend said, there have been about 14 despicable racially motivated murders in the past two years.
Why are so few racial attacks reported? There is such a great deal of under-reporting because, at one level, there is no confidence in the police. There is a perception that they will not take complaints seriously, and there have been examples of the police blaming the victim. On top of that, the victims know that there is no specific law making racial attacks an offence, so they do not believe it is worth their while reporting incidents to the police.
In 1985, I introduced the Racial Harassment Bill under the ten-minute rule. It was the first Bill presented to Parliament to make racial attack a criminal offence. It dealt mainly with housing, but it had three aspects. First, it provided that the perpetrators of racial harassment should be evicted from their homes, instead of the victims having to flee for their safety. Secondly, it provided that racial harassment should be a specific offence, as suggested in the new clause. Thirdly, it would have imposed a duty on the police to investigate and report in every such case. The Bill also provided a schedule of offences that would be legally punishable, including graffiti, racist verbal abuse, and so on.
Since I introduced that Bill, there have been some successes. For example, the definition of what the police record as a complaint of a racial offence has changed and some local authorities have taken up the matter with their own hotlines and have improved their guidelines in their departments to take action against racism when they have come across it.
Of course, the biggest success is that Front-Bench Members of the Labour party have accepted that they would make racial attacks a criminal offence. Indeed, that has been accepted by many Conservatives Members, including the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Finchley (Mr. Booth). There is overwhelming public opinion in favour of the introduction of a law along the lines of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford.
Despite all the support, this Bill represents the 27 measures cited by the Home Secretary at the Conservative party conference. It includes, for example, action against anti-hunt demonstrators, but it does not take action against racist criminals. That is an insult to the black and Asian communities and to all decently minded, anti-racist people in the country.
When the Home Secretary went on a tour of the east end, he said:
Good relations is not just legislation; but advice, information, help and education—measures that create mutual understanding".


He does not talk about advice, information, help and education when it comes to tackling other crime. Let us deal with punishing the offenders in racial circumstances. As for mutual understanding, the Prime Minister said that we should have a little less understanding and a bit more punishment. Why does not that apply to racists? Why do the Government turn that on its head whenever we talk about racial offences?
When the hon. Member for Finchley introduced his Bill recently and it was talked out by some Conservative Members, the Minister of State, Home Office said that the Government could not legislate until there had been a serious and thorough investigation by a Select Committee. Select Committees have reported and said that there should be an offence of racial harassment. It is nine years since my Bill came before the House—nine years of increasing racial attacks and of murders. Surely that is a serious and thorough enough investigation. The Government have adopted a complacent attitude. They have not shown any moral lead to combat racism. New law is needed. There was a survey of youths in Leeds who were committing racial offences. They knew that it was not a crime when they were confronted. It needs to be made a crime. There needs to be pressure on the police to enforce action against racists, since some forces would still be reluctant to do so unless there is a law for them to implement. The state, especially, must make its anti-racist position absolutely clear in the law.
One other reason for such a law is the rise of the British National party. It is a most dangerous organisation, not only to black and Asian communities, but to the whole community. It is a threat to democracy and I would not be opposed to banning it. Neo-Nazi organisations have been banned in Germany, for example. If the Government say that there would be civil liberties problems in banning the BNP, they need to make its activities illegal and make the racist attacks that it carries out illegal. That is why a new law is so important.
Racism is a scapegoat creed. Its real sources are unemployment, bad housing, poverty and hardship, which stem from the economic failures of the Government and of capitalism. Law will not solve that problem, but it will go a long way at least in showing that the state is seriously against the racist outcome of those problems.
Wherever racism rears its ugly head, there is death. Whether the Ku Klux Klan, the apartheid regime, racial attacks in this country or the holocaust of Nazi Germany, racism equals death. It is in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony; those societies equal life.
We need a law; we need the state to come out firmly to say that racism will not be tolerated. That is what the big march the other week by the Trades Union Congress was about. Tens of thousands of people came on to the streets demanding action against racism. The new clause goes in that direction.

Mr. John Marshall: At this time of the evening, hon. Members should remember that speeches do not need to be interminable to be immortal. I shall therefore make a relatively short speech. Virtually everyone in this country and everyone in the House abhors

racism, which is against all the traditions of tolerance and liberalism in this country. However, there are a small number of evil men who are determined to harass individuals because of their race, their religion or their colour. That is against all the traditions of this country and against what the House stands for.
In my constituency, I have seen some of the evils of racism and anti-semitism. Hate mail and holocaust denial are all too common. The hate mail that I have seen—some of which I have received—is sheer, unadulterated filth. Many of my constituents fled from the horrors of Nazism in the 1930s and they find a chilling echo of 1930s German in some of the mail that they receive today. They served this country well in war and they have a right to spend the evening of their lives in peace.
One of the other obscenities that we have seen is the daubing of cemeteries with Nazi propaganda. Surely at the very least people should be allowed to rest in peace when they have died. It is one of the tragedies of life in this country that if one visits a synagogue or a Jewish school one can guarantee that there will be security men on guard. It is surely wrong that a place of religion or a place of education should need a security officer because the worshippers and the children want to feel secure.
There are weaknesses in the law. There is sometimes a failure to prosecute. I have seen leaflets that have been circulated in London university which are certainly an incitement to death, but nothing has been done to prosecute those who produce the leaflets.
There are other weaknesses in the law to which I hope that our right hon. Friend the Minister will address himself. I refer, for example, to the power of constables to arrest. If a constable is on duty at Hyde Park corner and hears a racist speech, he can arrest the law-breaker there and then. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and I have some experience of Hyde Park corner as we used to speak there many years ago, in the dark days of the last Labour Government, but we never got arrested because we were not racist.
If constables see someone distributing racist literature through letter boxes in Tower Hamlets or elsewhere, they do not have the power to arrest them there and then. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to look at the power of constables to carry out arrests to try to curb racial hatred and racism. I hope that he will give an assurance to the House this evening that he will look at the problem. I should also like him to give an assurance that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords he will consider the possibility of amendments being tabled. By then, he will have had the benefit of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in Scotland there is anti-English literature being distributed? That, too, must be properly dealt with.

Mr. Marshall: I have great sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend. When I went to Scotland at the age of six I remember being told in the playground of the Harris academy in Dundee that I was a foreigner. The situation was aggravated when my mother told me to tell the others that we ruled them from Westminster. That did not go down well then, and I do not think that such comments go down terribly well in Scotland today. There is no doubt that what my hon. Friend has said is right.
There is an evil and a cancer afflicting our society.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have been following his remarks closely. He seems to be arguing—and I agree—that there should be changes in legislation. Will he dissociate himself from the words of the Prime Minister, who said in the House some days ago that there was no need for any change in the law?

Mr. Marshall: I must apologise to the House for the fact that my good nature has prolonged my speech in that I have given way twice. I thought that I made it quite clear to the House that I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister should look at the power of arrest by constables, which obviously involves a change in the law. I asked him to consider making arrangements for an amendment to be tabled in the other place once he had received the report of the Select Committee, as he will have done by the time the Bill passes to the other place. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us an assurance on that matter this evening.

Mr. Winnick: It will be most welcome if the Minister of State, when he responds, says that the Government are sympathetic to new clause 13, but bearing in mind the unfortunate remarks that he made when the Bill of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) was being debated we have little hope that the Government will support the new clause.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I had a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of that Bill, but not with the way it sought to achieve them.

Mr. Winnick: That is the very point that we are trying to establish today. It is not enough simply to deplore—as we all do—the racial attacks on and harassment of people because of their colour, religion or racial origin. The question is what the House is going to do about it. What laws can we enact to help victims of racism?
The amount of racial violence is disturbing. The official figures from the Home Office refer to nearly 8,000 racial attacks in a given year. I believe that the true figures on racial violence are much higher. The Minister of State, in an intervention in a previous debate—indeed, in the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs—accepted that figures on racial harassment, as opposed to violence, are very high. The Minister corrected me by saying that he wanted to make it clear that the figure that he gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs referred to racial harassment. Leaving aside the amount of racial violence, the Government, through the Minister of State, accept the amount of harassment that occurs simply because of the victim's colour of skin or racial origin.
As my hon. Friends have said, there is little doubt that racial gangs are operating. They are not exclusively responsible for the sort of violence that we have seen in recent months in the United Kingdom, particularly in the east end of London. No one suggests that the fascist gangs are exclusively responsible, but they are behind many of the attacks. I find it inconceivable that we already have laws on the statute book against incitement to racial hatred—those laws are not in dispute and, as I understand it, no one wants to repeal them—yet at the same time organisations exist which are designed purely to stir up as much racial propaganda and agitation as possible and to

cause attacks on people. That is the only reason why gangs such as the National Front and the British National party exist. By acting as they do, they break the present law.
As well as passing new laws, it is important that existing laws are properly implemented. Much more could be done by the police to ensure that some of the racial attacks do not occur. When they do occur, the police should ensure that the offenders are brought to court.

Mr. David Sumberg: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the law should be much more strongly enforced, but my difficulty with the new clause—I entirely support the motivation behind it—is that the level of proof required to get home in court will be much higher. One will have to prove harassment and that it has a racial motive. I fear that many guilty men and women will go free if the clause is included in the Bill and it is bad law for a case to be brought, only to fail.

Mr. Winnick: I understand some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but the offence will be in addition to existing laws on violence. No one is suggesting that it is the only way in which the alleged offender can be brought to court—it is an additional way.
One of the purposes of new clause 13 is to demonstrate society's abhorrence of such attacks. In effect, the new offence would show that they are totally unacceptable and that it is unacceptable for violence to be caused to a victim simply because of colour or race. It would be an additional factor to be taken into account when sentencing and not the only evidence that came to court.

Mrs. Roche: Further to that argument, is it correct that in such cases one would charge offenders with the new offence of racial harassment or violence and also—if an assault had taken place—with actual or grievous bodily harm? If one could not get home on one element of the new offence, one would be able to fall back on existing law.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All forms of violence and criminality are strongly to be deplored. As we know, there is too much violence and crime in Britain today.
As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), I am reminded of the debates within and outside the House about how we should deal with racial discrimination. At that time, most Conservative politicians and the Conservative Government argued strongly that however wrong such discrimination was—they did not deny that it was taking place—legislation was not the right way to deal with it.
Time and again, Fenner Brockway moved ten-minute Bills in the early 1960s, arguing strongly that it was essential to introduce laws to deal effectively with racial discrimination. He turned out to be right. Employers who said that they had no objections, but that their customers would object if they employed people who did not have white skin, were not going to change their ways until the law made it impossible for them to continue to discriminate. Now, no one is surprised that banks and other institutions employ people who do not have white skin. If people objected in a bank and said that they did not want to be served by a cashier because he or she happened to black, they would clearly need psychiatric help. No one objects.
It has been clearly demonstrated that, however much discrimination still exists, legislation was necessary. The same applies today. Just as it was right to legislate then, it is right to do so today, when we are faced with the amount of racial violence and the number of attacks on people in parts of London only two, three and four miles from here. People are literally terrified of going out late in the evening. They are terrified when their children go to school. Why? It is simply because in the main they are of Asian origin and the bullies pick on the women and children. They are the defenceless victims of racism in many parts of the country and in the east end of London.
We must not merely deplore racism. Government action is necessary in this Parliament to ensure that the victims of racism get the protection that only Parliament can give. The Government must act, and act quickly.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: A number of hon. Members have already referred to the growing evidence of racial attacks and harassment, so I do not propose to repeat it.
Many of us know from our constituents about the impact of racism on their daily lives. From representations that we have received from individuals and from black, Asian and Jewish organisations, we know that the law needs to be strengthened. Harassment penetrates every aspect of victims' lives. It is not an isolated incident, but something that occurs every day. In many cases it goes on for years and years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, people feel threatened and unsafe in situations in which most of us would not feel the slightest threat—in their own homes, at school and in places of worship. The current law is often ineffectual when dealing with those fears.
12 midnight
Those people are looking for some action. We may be told that more time is needed to conduct more inquiries and reports before anything can be done, but racial harassment is not new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has said, Bills were proposed years ago to draw attention to the problem. Although the Government may have time to wait for the outcome of reports and inquiries, the people in our constituencies who are suffering harassment every day do not. They want to know why the Bill contains nothing to deal with the problem and why it is necessary to debate a new clause to deal with it at this stage in the Bill's proceedings.
For many years those people have had to seal up their letter boxes to stop petrol being poured through and their homes set on fire. They have had to deal with graffiti on their houses, abuse in the street and physical attacks. A great deal of such harassment goes unreported because people feel that nothing will be done, that the law is ineffective and will not be brought into play.

Ms Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a question of physical damage, the fire bombing of houses, the fear felt by children on the way to school, attacks in the street which, if nothing is done about them, will eventually lead to someone being killed, or the fact that woman are afraid to go out at night and that whole parts of the east end which used to be lively are now dead after 9 pm?
We must also consider the emotional damage that race hate inflicts on young children. A little boy of five with a bandage around his knee told me that he was bitten by a dog because dogs do not like black people. That is terribly sad, because children's self-image and their confidence is being destroyed by race hate. Is it not time that the Government—some of whose members have sent out racist signals on a number of occasions—sent out an anti-racist signal by doing something about the law?

Mr. Gerrard: I agree absolutely. Sometimes it is easy to look at the extremes of violence and say that we must deal with the murders and arson, and ignore what may be regarded as the more trivial offences of abuse and graffiti. We may ignore the cumulative effect of such behaviour.
From time to time, we have all been insulted, but most of us do not have to deal with insults, abuse or personally directed graffiti every day. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) has drawn attention to the serious psychological damage that that causes. That damage reveals the need for subsection (2) of the new clause, which makes certain acts racial harassment offences.
At the moment, victims of harassment do not trust the authorities—including the police, councils, voluntary organisations or schools—to take action. The feeling is that no one will help. Although many local authorities have improved their anti-racist policies and the police have improved their methods of dealing with racial crime, people's perception is still that no one will help them. For that reason, it is vital that the law should be changed. That would send out a message about public policy and make it easier to deal with the perpetrators of racial harassment.
There is no reason for complacency or for saying that we can wait and that there is time for study. It is time for action. I do not hold out much hope after what the Minister said earlier, but I should have thought that we might have a positive response tonight because people in our constituencies cannot continue to wait.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Arbuthnot]

Debate to be resumed this day.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. James Cran, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Peter Robinson, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John D. Taylor, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Wolfson be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery. on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Stephen Dunne

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. David Martin: My luck in the ballot has enabled me to raise a matter of grave concern to individual constituents in Portsmouth which also has national relevance.
The issue of child protection and child abuse is deeply emotive. Having children myself, and with active family involvement for many years supporting the fine work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I am well aware how easy it is to be misunderstood or misrepresented if one even questions, let alone criticises, fashionable theories and practice based mainly, these days, on the Children Act 1989 and the guidelines produced by the relevant Government departments since.
In the past 20 years, in the paramount interests of the child's welfare, we have given draconian powers to the state to interfere in everyone's home and family, principally through the agents of doctors, police, social workers, probation officers and employees of the NSPCC. We have given powers which require careful training, maturity, sound judgment, restraint and, above all, considerable common sense on the part of all those people to whom they are entrusted on our behalf.
If not so exercised, those powers can do immense damage and grave injustice to innocent parents and other adults, including teachers, who have the misfortune to have the finger merely of suspicion pointed at them, and who find themselves effectively having to prove their innocence of assumed guilt rather than the other way around.
The facts of the case affecting my constituents, the Dunne family, are chilling. Mr. and Mrs. Dunne are responsible, decent people, happily married, with unblemished characters and no history of child abuse. 'They live in their own home in Southsea, in good financial circumstances, and have close family living nearby. 'They have two sons—Andrew, aged three and a half, and Stephen, aged six months.
On 25 February, at 6.15 pm, Mrs. Dunne was bathing the then five-month-old Stephen when she felt a swelling on the right side of his head. She was very worried. There was no sign of bruising, and the swelling felt like fluid. Her husband returned home at 6.45 pm, and they immediately decided to go to the paediatric unit at St. Mary's hospital for casualty attention. They arrived at 7 o' clock and were registered at half-past 7. Stephen had not been seen by 10 pm. He was tired—they were sitting in a corridor—so Mrs. Dunne returned home with the child, the nurse suggesting a visit to their doctor the next morning.
They rang at half-past 8 the next morning, and saw Dr. Robinson at 9.45 am. She referred them immediately to St. Mary's again, writing a letter and telephoning to warn of arrival. By 11 am Stephen had not been examined. Mrs. Dunne suggested coming back when they were less busy, and the nurse said that she would telephone. They were telephoned at 3.45 pm and Stephen was at lest seen at 4 pm, almost 24 hours after the injury had been noticed.
He had shown absolutely no signs of distress, vomiting, nausea or of being off his food, as one might expect with a significant head injury. Two doctors in succession examined him and asked whether he had had a fall or a knock. Mrs. Dunne simply did not know what had caused

it, and said so. It was a pure isolated home accident, the type that any experienced parents, even of a superhuman type, regrettably find themselves unable to explain. At 6 o'clock, he was given two head X-rays and admitted overnight. Mrs. Dunne stayed on the ward with him, but had little sleep as Stephen was woken every hour.
The next morning, Mrs. Dunne's sister came to visit with Mr. Dunne. Others were on the ward. At about 10.30 am, Dr. Martin Hardman, a consultant paediatrician, arrived. Unlike the two doctors the previous day, his manner was unfriendly and intimidating. He examined Stephen all over, making it clear that he was looking for signs of injury. He found nothing whatever. He asked repeatedly how the swelling occurred. To the Dunnes' disbelief and horror, he then said offensively, "It's obvious, isn't it?", plainly implying that they had inflicted the injury themselves.
The Dunnes became even more upset. Finally, Dr. Hardman suggested that they go into a private room. With breathtaking ignorance of all that had gone before, he then accused them of not seeking immediate medical attention. He claimed that Stephen had a fractured skull and that "someone must have done it". He said that Stephen must have several more X-rays and stay in hospital, not for medical reasons but to keep him in a safe place.
Mr. Dunne insisted that they return home, and they did so, with Dr. Hardman warning him that it would not look good to social services. The next day, Stephen had eight X-rays of his body. Naturally, no injuries were revealed. His head was further X-rayed. The Dunnes returned home.
That evening, the nightmare worsened, when two police officers and a social worker arrived. They wanted Mr. Dunne to go to the police station for an interview, but he objected strongly and telephoned his parents, who arrived shortly afterwards. Eventually, Mr. and Mrs. Dunne were interviewed in separate rooms at home. One can imagine the emotional turmoil.
The following day, Mrs. Dunne experienced traumatic depression. She felt that she could not be alone with her children, as she was terrified that they may have an accident. She rang the social worker, who came to try to put her mind at rest. On 8 March, a child protection conference was held. Incredibly, it was decided to place Stephen on the child protection register, and to review the case after a month.
The Dunnes are in the grip of the system. There is no apparent escape from it, or from the record. They have appealed to the hospital and to Hampshire social services, the result of which, without my raising the matter as soon as possible in the House, is likely to be explanations and apologies from the hospital for the delays before Stephen was finally seen, but no retreat or effective action with respect to their treatment at the hands of Dr. Hardman. The social services will, understandably, probably reiterate that it is their duty to investigate such matters, and that they merely played it according to the law and the guidelines, once Dr. Hardman had alerted them.
There should be a rigorous independent case conference about the following. First, why did the hospital take from 7 pm on Friday 25 February until 4 pm on Saturday 26 February before examining a five-month-old baby, despite an injury later described as a fractured skull—of which, incidentally, the parents would like proof—and given that it is common knowledge that the first 24 hours are the most critical in such cases?
Secondly, why was Dr. Hardman plainly ill informed about such details? Flouting all guidelines, he turned to the parents in a public place and, without demonstrating an open mind, made a profoundly shocking allegation.
Thirdly, what inquiries had Dr. Hardman made of Mr. and Mrs. Dunne's GP about family history and the likelihood of child abuse in respect of their children before activating all the panoply of the child abuse system?
Fourthly, what official independent procedure can investigate Dr. Hardman's diagnosis and actions—apart from my raising what is admittedly one side of the matter in the House as a matter of urgency—and appropriate action consequential on that?
Fifthly, why could not Hampshire social services, in such a case and with such a family, at least try to arrange a low-key, preliminary visit by an experienced social worker, instead of the immediate and traumatic arrival of a social worker accompanied by two police officers whose duty was to take statements and, apparently, take the father off to the police station?
Finally, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider further general considerations that arise from this case?
The NSPCC recently set up an inquiry into why, when there has rightly been such concentration in recent years on laws and procedures to investigate child abuse, the incidence of such deaths does not diminish. There must be more concentration on prevention. If parents are treated thus, as the Dunnes were, despite their family history and record, when they jointly attend casualty with their child, should not the obvious lesson to every other parent—a lesson potentially most harmful to children—be that, if they go to casualty with an injured child, they will be dubbed a suspected child abuser, with all that that entails?
I shudder to think what would have been activated if the unexplained and unexpected cot death of my wife's and my second child, at the age of five months in 1980, had received this sort of investigative attention—not to mention the broken arm of our four-year-old boy some years ago as a result of a home accident. We are all extremely vulnerable as parents, especially those of us who believe in the right of parents to smack young children as part of sensible discipline.
Of course the investigators can—and no doubt do—always argue that they have a duty to act. Of course it can be explained that child protection conferences are not tribunals to decide whether abuse has taken place; that the placing of a child on the protection register does not imply that the parents are guilty of abusing their child. Tell that to Mr. and Mrs. Dunne, or to their family, or to others who get to hear it; tell it to the marines.
According to paragraph 6.39 of the authoritative guidelines in "Working Together", for a child to be placed on the register either there must be an identifiable incident and professional judgment that further incidents are likely, or significant harm is expected on the basis of professional judgment of findings of the investigation, or on research evidence.
These are the criteria on which the conclusion in Stephen's case was based. Perhaps my hon. Friend can ask to see the evidence that could have led to that conclusion—particularly the essential finding that further incidents are likely or to be expected. That finding is deeply

offensive to responsible parents, incorporating as it must complete rejection of the idea of an isolated, one-off home accident.
It may also be relevant to ask how older brother Andrew, three and a half years old, has safely reached such an age without being protected from his parents by a paediatrician, the social services and the police.
While doing all we can to root out the evils of genuine incidents of child abuse which turn our stomachs, let us keep a sense of proportion, and, above all, common sense. Only a tiny minority of parents are child abusers, under any reasonable definition of the term. Mr. and Mrs. Dunne have certainly never been in that category, and everything should now be done to see that their faith in the justness of the system is restored, including the immediate removal of Stephen from the child protection register.
I ask my hon. Friend to do what he can to put things right, not only for the sake of this family but for others who may experience similar treatment, which so distorts and misdirects where the real effort is required: in the constant and necessary battle against the horrors of child abuse.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) has had the good fortune in the ballot which has enabled him to raise this constituency case. He has set it in the context of his personal and family experience. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns for his constituents, especially in the light of his account of the unfortunate and worrying chain of events preceding the child protection investigation.
My hon. Friend asked some important questions about the handling of the case and the possible redress available to the Dunnes—questions similar to the inquiries that I requested be made when I heard of his concerns.
I propose to consider first the problems that Mr. and Mrs. Dunne encountered at St. Mary's hospital, since they seem to be at the core of the case, before I move on to the child protection issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
I understand that there may be some disagreement between Stephen's parents and the hospital about the precise sequence of events, starting with their attendance at ward C2 on 25 February. The hospital's account is that they presented themselves at the medical admissions ward at 7.35 pm on Friday 25 February because Stephen had a lump on the right side of his head.
When a nurse booked them in, she is said to have explained to them that they would have a long wait because the paediatric unit was extremely busy at the time. The consultant paediatrician was on the ward between 9 pm and midnight, treating a sick baby. There is a hospital document which states that, at 10 pm, the parents did
not wish to wait longer to see doctor
and they then took Stephen home.
The following day, they saw their GP, who referred Stephen as an in-patient back to St. Mary's hospital. They then presented themselves again at the hospital, and Stephen was admitted at about 4.30 pm.
However, while there may be some dispute about the sequence of events, what is not in dispute is that Stephen was not seen by a doctor on the evening of 25 February. This raises very serious issues about the reception of patients on ward C2 at St. Mary's hospital. The local arrangement at St. Mary's hospital in Portsmouth is for children who need urgent attention to be directed straight


to a children's ward. That should not mean that the standards of care are lower. We would still expect suitably experienced staff to be available to assess all children immediately they arrive.
Once a child's condition has been assessed, the child may have to wait for treatment—if other children have greater clinical needs. But we have made it clear in our guidance entitled "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital" that every hospital should have effective procedures to prioritise waiting children, and ensure they are seen promptly.
Hospital staff cannot prevent parents from taking their children home if that is what the parents have decided. But no child should under any circumstances be sent home or formally discharged by hospital staff unless the child has first been given an opportunity to be seen by a doctor.
Mr. and Mrs. Dunne understandably, and rightly, made use of their entitlement under the patients charter to complain through the hospital complaints procedures about the service they had received. Current procedures provide for a full investigation into complaints and for a prompt written response to be made. I have seen the response of the chief executive, which acknowledges the failure of the hospital staff to respond promptly and correctly in the first instance, and offers apologies for that failure.
The matter was also discussed at a meeting of the hospital clinical standards board on 24 March, and the chief executive has now written to Mr. and Mrs. Dunne to inform them that the board shared his concern over the admitted failures of 25 February. I understand that the board chairman and medical director of the trust are to hold urgent discussions to determine and agree the steps to be taken to ensure that such a distressing incident is not repeated.
If Mr. and Mrs. Dunne are dissatisfied with the process of the handling of their complaint, they may complain to the health service ombudstnan. However, he is unable to investigate that part of the case which is about clinical judgment, as it falls outside his jurisdiction.
If part of a complaint involves clinical judgment, the matter can be referred to the regional director of public health, for him or her to decide whether an independent professional review by two consultants not involved in the case should be carried out. None of these avenues, of course, precludes Mr. and Mrs. Dunn taking action through the courts if they so wish.
I will be asking the chief executive for an assurance that any necessary action has been taken in response to the issues that have been raised by the failures acknowledged by the chief executive and the board. I shall also be asking the chief executive to satisfy himself and me that all relevant staff at the hospital are fully trained in child protection procedures.
That brings me to the next aspect of this case and the further question raised by my hon. Friend—the child protection investigation.
The issue of alleged or suspected child abuse is one of extraordinary sensitivity. It trails with it a heavy cloud of suspicion. It can create mistrust and division among the closest of families, and it creates the paradox that, at the very time when parents and families most need support and reassurance, when a child whom they love is in pain, officialdom arrives with questions to be answered.
Often in such cases, of course, there are no easy answers. That is why I understand the anguished feelings

of Mr. and Mrs. Dunne. Like all families in such a situation, they must not be labelled guilty, but presumed innocent until and unless guilt is proven and, accordingly, treated with respect, sensitivity and courtesy. Anything else is intolerable, inhumane and in contravention of the basic principles of British justice.
My hon. Friend referred to the Government's inter-agency guidance on child protection, "Working Together under the Children Act 1989". Set firmly within the context of that Act, it strikes the right balance between promoting decisive action where that is necessary to protect children from abuse, and reinforcing the need for all professionals to acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of parents and to approach each case with an open mind.
At an operational level, Government guidance should be promoted through the local inter-agency procedures drawn up under the auspices of the area child protection committee. Hampshire published revised child protection procedures in January 1993. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Dunne have a particular concern about a reference in the procedures that states, at paragraph 3.3(iii):
Where health staff have information or concern regarding the welfare of a child they will notify the Social Services Department promptly. In child protection cases, the degree of confidentiality will be governed by the paramount need to protect the child".
I further understand that Mr. and Mrs. Dunne met representatives of the social services department on 21 March to outline their particular concerns, and that they have been invited to take the matter up with Hampshire, once the present issue has been resolved, if they want to further the discussion about improvement in practice involving abuse procedures.
Following one issue that has arisen in this case, Hampshire social services will be consulting Victim Support about its role in helping families in child protection situations, to ascertain whether there are lessons to be learned on a broader scale.
As for the police involvement and action, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment, but Mr. and Mrs. Dunne may want to make use of the normal channel for complaints concerning the police, which is the Police Complaints Authority.
My hon. Friend asked for the removal of Stephen's name from the child protection register. That is a local decision taken in accordance with guidance under the Children Act 1989, and one in which I cannot intervene. I know that, in line with our guidance, Stephen's parents, and another family member—Mrs. Dunne's sister—attended the whole of the initial conference called by Hampshire on 8 March to discuss Stephen's case. Before that conference, Mr. and Mrs. Dunne were given a leaflet of explanation about child protection conferences, together with a copy of the factual report of events.
Mr. and Mrs. Dunne have also been invited to attend the review conference planned for 5 April. I hope that they feel able to work in partnership with the social services and the other agencies involved in the case.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern—indeed, his scepticism—about the view stated in our guidance, that placement on the register does not imply any guilt. I re-emphasise the important point that the purpose of the child protection conference is simply to decide whether or not to place the child's name on the child protection


register. If the decision is made to do so, the conference will draw up a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary plan for the child's protection.
As our guidance makes clear, the conference is emphatically not a forum for a formal decision that a person has abused a child—that is for the courts. Likewise, placement of a child's name on the child protection register does not mean that the child has been abused. It is a record of children for whom there are unresolved concerns and for whom there is a co-operative protection plan of the kind that I described.
Parental involvement is central to the principles of the Children Act 1989. Before that legislation, we had seen media interviews with some of the parents involved in high-profile child abuse cases in which they had been denied information by authorities, were at best confused, and at worst saw the professionals involved as active enemies. We wanted parents to be involved at all stages of an investigation or intervention, to be informed about the basis for it, and to be consulted at all stages subsequently.
We have made considerable efforts to promote family involvement through the development of training materials financed by our child abuse training initiative, and through a practice guide on "The Challenge of Partnership", which is in preparation. Among materials funded through the training initiative was the development and production of a training package on "Family Participation in Child Protection".
We have also helped to finance a new edition of a joint Family Rights Group and National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children publication, "Child Protection Procedures: What They Mean For Your Family". It has been translated into several languages and is very helpful to parents and family members, in particular in understanding the procedures surrounding child protection conferences and in avoiding jargon—a trap into which professionals too often fall, and one which can be a

real barrier to involvement at a time when all the individuals in the family may be feeling particularly isolated and vulnerable. We are funding a training video on parental perceptions of significant harm and child protection investigations, which is aimed to be accessible to both social services professionals and to parents.
I conclude by agreeing wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we must keep a sense of proportion, while doing all that we can to root out incidents of child abuse. This is why "Working Together" aims to create the conditions in which agencies act swiftly and decisively when immediate protection of the child is the highest priority. We cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that, in the most extreme circumstances, we are preventing a threat to a child's life.
We are all too well aware of cases in which social services, and other agencies, have been rightly criticised for inaction or inappropriate action. Recent well-publicised cases in Islington and Nottingham have demonstrated all too clearly that the child pays the penalty for the mistakes of the professionals. It is equally right that it is a fundamental principle of the Children Act 1989 that the safety of the child is the paramount consideration.
On the one hand, the debate is about the damage which can be felt by families who feel falsely accused of having abused their child. On the other hand, unexplained head injuries in a child of this age must always feature high on our list of priorities for consideration of investigation, to ensure that the child, whose welfare is of paramount importance, is not at risk of harm.
There are questions to be asked in this case. They are questions which I shall be asking of the hospital. Were the complaints and appeals procedures available to the family? I hope that the coming conference will resolve the difficulties faced by the family, and that Stephen will go on to flourish in a happy and supportive family atmosphere. That is what local and national policy must be all about.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.